Government $150,000 $ 30,000 (E-122

[ix] r.-} FiLv:::.loN No. Project No. A- 30 36 DATE 11/12/81 Project Director: Mr. Edwin Bethea )8YO31/Lab EDL/BDD

Sponsor: U. S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency

Type Agreement: Grant No. 98-10-80018-01 dated 9/16/81

Award Period: From 8./1/81 To 7 /I3I * (Performance) 10 / 31 / 82 (Reports)

Sponsor Amount: $150,000 Contracted through:

Cost Sharing: $ 30,000 (E-122-111) 16 GTRUGIT

Title: Technology Commercialization Center

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA OCA Contact Faith G. Costello

1) Sponsor Technical Contact: 2) Sponsor Admin/Contractual Matters:

- oio . Joyce Russman, Grants Specialist Protect Administrator US Dept. of Commerce (202) 377-3816 Minority Business Dev. Agency (same as for adm. contact) 14th & Constitution Ave NW Rm 5090 Washington, DC 20230

r iority Rating: N/A Security Classification: N/A

RESTRICTIONS

See Attached Gov't Supplemental Information Sheet for Additional Requirements.

Travel: Ft-filitViravel must have prior approval — Contact OCA in each case. Domestic travel requires sponsor

approval where total will exceed greater of S500 or 125% of approved proposal budget category.

Equipment: Title vests with Government

COMMENTS: Renewal of project no. A-2771, Grant No. 98-10-70002-00

fs. k

.... ..., poi.., - t.t.i\i r,-)1 cn rc‘VE ,,'-', Reports Lor., Resear ch

"IEGE:6 6D- COPIES TO:

Administrative Coordinator Research Security Services EES Public Relations (2) Research Property Management R-414;14-6--eurffrITnator -f0C.A) Computer Input Accounting Legal Services (OCA) Project File ProcurementIEES Supply Services LibraryI. Other FOg

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHVOLOGY OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

SPONSORED PROJECT TERMINATION/CLOSEOUT SHEET

Date 4/10/86

Project No. A-3036 gjMNLab EDL

Includes Subproject No.(s) N/A

, Project Director(s) GTR:C/

Sponsor rr,,mpr c e. miz,nk

Title Technology Commercialization Center

Effective Completion Date: 10/31/85 (Performance) 1/29/86 (Reports)

Grant/Contract Closeout Actions Remaining:

I I None

Final Invoice or Final Fiscal Report J Y 1 I Closing Documents 1 x 1 Final Report of Inventions Patent Questionaire sent to E. A. Bethea I i Govt. Property Inventory & Related Certificate

Classified Material Certificate

1 Other

Continues Project No. Continued by Project No.

COPIES TO:

Project Director Library Research Administrative Network GT RI Research Property Management Research Communications (2) Accounting Project File Procurement/EES Supply Services Other Heyser, Embry, Jones Research Security Services

(Reports na tor (OCADi legal Services

Form OCA 60:1028 QUARTERLY REPORT PROJECT NO. 98-10-80018-01 A-3036

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

By Edwin A. Bethea, Project Director David S. Clifton, Jr., Advisory Staff Ben E. James, Jr. Hans Spauschus Hardy S. Taylor

November 1981

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY A Unit of the University System of Georgia Engineering Experiment Station Atlanta, Georgia 30332 1981 Quarterly Report August, September and October 1981 MBDA - Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER QUARTERLY REPORT

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist Project Director

Project Advisory Team

David S. Clifton, Jr. Senior Research Scientist Ben E. James, Jr. Senior Research Scientist Hans Spauschus Principal Research Scientist Hardy S. Taylor Senior Research Scientist

This material is the result of tax-supported research and as such is not copyrightable. It may be freely reprinted with the customary crediting of the source.

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Engineering Experiment Station Economic Development Laboratory Atlanta, Georgia 30332

November 1981 Quarterly Report August, September and October 1981 MBDA - Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER 3 Product/Venture Ideas 3 Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized 3 Evaluations Completed 4 Design Modification and Development 4 Product/Venture Ideas under Review and Evaluation 5 Product/Venture Ideas Transferred to Other TCCs 6 Technical Evaluations Performed for Other TCCs 6

Discontinued and Inactive Product/Venture Ideas 6 Terminated or Discontinued Projects 6 Inactive Projects 6

Resource Searches and Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs 6

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 7 TUCC Administrative Activities 7 Supportive Staff Activities 7 Advisory Council Activities 7 TUCC Participating Firms Activities 8 TCC Networking Activities 8

PROGRAM ANALYSIS 9 SUMMARY

The highlight of this quarter was the National Business League's presentation of one of its Berkeley G. Burrell awards to Georgia Tech for its activity in the area of minority business development. This was the first time an educational institution has received this prestigious award. The activities of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center -- whose performance has steadily expanded over the past five years and has gained increasing recognition -- were the primary reason for Georgia Tech's receiving this award. TUCC handled 30 product/venture ideas during this quarter, the highest number the program has handled in one quarter since its inception. Grant and refunding problems continued to divert a sizable amount of the program's energy from more productive ends, but efforts are underway to diminish these difficulties. The TUCC Advisory Council continues to demonstrate its support and interest by its direct involvement with program staff and participating firms. INTRODUCTION

This report describes the work performed during this quarter (August, September, and October) by the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. It is divided into three major categories: WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, and PROGRAM ANALYSIS. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER is described under three main topics: Product/Venture Ideas, Discontinued Product/Venture Ideas, and Resource Searches and Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs. Two of these main topics have subcategories. Product/Venture Ideas has six: Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized, Evaluations Completed, Design Modification and Development, Product/Venture Ideas under Review and Evaluation, Product/Venture Ideas Transferred to Other TCCs, and Technical Evaluations or Assistance Rendered to Other TCCs. Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas has two subcategories: Terminated or Discontinued Projects and Inactive Projects. The PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT section describes TUCC's administrative efforts, its plans, and the various interrelated activities involving TUCC supportive staff, advisory council members, TUCC participants, and other centers in the network. This section has five subcategories: TUCC Administra- tive Activities, Supportive Staff Activities, Advisory Council Activities, TUCC Participating Firms Activities, and TCC Networking Activities. PROGRAM ANALYSIS describes the center's progress, successes, problems, weaknesses, and strengths during this reporting period. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER

Product/Venture Ideas

During this quarter TUCC handled a total of 30 product/venture ideas. Included in this total are four projects involving minority-owned firms that requested searches and identifications of new technology. The center completed preliminary technical and engineering evaluations on six product/venture ideas; fifteen are still undergoing review; one was transferred to ITRAD, the Oklahoma TCC; and one participating firm requested product development assistance which TUCC is performing. Activity on two ideas was discontinued because of inactivity on the inventor's and business owner's part. Three firms have engaged TUCC to perform technology searches, thus consenting to have TUCC develop capability profiles for them. One product/venture idea, the "Plant Guardian," formerly the "Plant Manager," has moved into the commercialization stage. The Booker T. Washington TCC has requested that TUCC perform a technical evaluation on one of its product/venture ideas.

Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization The Plant Guardian -- The Plant Guardian is being evaluated and tested by Sears in Chicago. TUCC is a completing a new product report to be sent to Mr. Jim Troka, a contact with Sears -- identified by the Booker T. Washington Center -- who may help commercialize the product. The inventor attended a horticulture trade show in Chicago and returned very enthusiastic about the commercial patent of his product. He was also able to visit with representatives of Sears while he was in Chicago and they expressed interest in his new product. Kibbie Kapsule -- This project continues to be active since TUCC wishes to assist the corporation in its marketing efforts. Mike Gallie of the Urban National Corporation, a venture capital firm, and TUCC will meet during November to discuss how best to use TUCC's resources in this effort. Evaluations Completed An Integrated Biomass Energy System -- The TUCC director and the developer of this project determined that the funds needed to launch a feasibility study for this product were unavailable at this time. Furthermore, the originator of the concept is now engaged in other activities and would not have the time to develop the project. However, TUCC and the developer feel that the project still has merit. Pay Telephone Monitoring Device -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the product was technically sound but lacked commercial potential. TUCC also submitted the device to AT&T for review and that firm indicated no interest in it. Safety Signal Device for Railway Crossings -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the idea is sound and has some commercial potential, provided that the product's endurance and performance tests meet standards. TUCC plans to contact the inventor to determine if he wishes to proceed with such tests at Georgia Tech. Finger Tip -- The evaluation report indicates that the product has some commercial potential, and TUCC has forwarded Mr. C.D. Hunt a summary and recommendation for commercializing it. Energy Economizer -- TUCC's evaluation of this product determined that it was technically sound. However, the product has not been received with enthusiasm by manufacturers of small electric motors. General Electric reviewed the inventor's patent and decided that it did not wish to negotiate for patent rights to the product. The Continuous Process Column Still -- TUCC's evaluation determined this product was unsound and could not be realized in the way the inventor set forth in his diagrams.

Design Modification and Development Soundmate, Inc. -- This company has once again asked for TUCC's assistance, requesting that TUCC provide staff to develop schematic blueprints and designs for its electrical circuit and to develop a PC prototype of its product. TUCC has developed a plan for the work detailing which staff members will preform the specific services. -4- Product/Venture Ideas Under Review and Evaluation Drip Funnel for Hair Care Process -- This is a device for catching excess neutralizer that drips from hair during hair care and preparation. The evaluation process continues. Lock Assembly for Sliding Doors and Windows -- This device prevents the opening of sliding windows through the use of brackets, swivel bars, and "T" bars and hooks. Work on this product continues. Canal Fixer (Dental Equipment) -- This device, proposed by a dentist, would enable dentists to locate cavities requiring root canal work more easily. A Dynamoelectric Device -- This product claims the ability to produce electricity through the manipulation of magnetic fields. Solar Fission Generator -- This device and process is a means of converting ultraviolet light into electricity. The Advertising Module -- This is a proposed product/venture idea for electroconically displaying advertising for retail and industrial firms at airports. Self-Cooling Can -- This is a concept design for cooling beverage cans through a device within the can itself. Double Jalousie -- A device for enclosing porches and for use in industrial and residential construction. Fluid Mud Pulser -- This is a device that can be used in oil fields to transmit information about drilling circumstances in the "down hole" to the surface while the drilling is in process. Information about this product was obtained from Harry Diamond Laboratories. Variable Valve Timing Device -- This device facilitates variation of the valves timing in an internal combustion engine either by an operator or automatically. Barber Clipper's Attachment -- This device is an adjustable attachment for barber clippers. Animal Waste Collection Device -- This device is a portable throw-away product that enables animal owners to collect and discard their pet's excretions sanitarily and without exposure to unpleasant odors.

Q-Time -- This is a software product for computerizing office files and business management functions. -5- Product/Venture Ideas Transferred to Other TCCs None. Technical Evaluations Performed for Other TCCs None.

Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas

Terminated or Discontinued Projects None. Inactive Projects William Peel Technical Services.

Resource Searches and Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs

Trianna Industries -- The meeting with the management and executives of Trianna was held as scheduled and was encouraging because representatives from all the agencies and groups involved were present. A TUCC Advisory Council member, Motorola, discussed a product it considered transferring to Trianna. However, it turned out that Trianna lacked both the equipment and the skilled staff necessary to manufacture the product. Motorola reaffirmed its willingness to attempt to identify other products Trianna could make. A second meeting is scheduled for late December to develop the best possible plan for stabilizing this firm. All in all, progress is being made with Trianna, though slowly. Delta Enterprises, Inc. -- Efforts to identify an appropriate product for Delta continue. Delta has sent TUCC two products to evaluate and TUCC supportive staff are reviewing these. Additionally, Delta's MESBIC has invested funds in the Soundmate's SM-4 product and has asked TUCC to assist it with development and commercialization efforts. AIV Corporation -- This is an Atlanta-based tool distribution firm that packages tool kits and distributes them to major corporations. The firm is seeking to expand through new product lines. The president of AIV visited TUCC's office to discuss his company's plans and TUCC is scheduled to visit his facility in early November.

-6- PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

TUCC Administrative Activities

Renewal of the starting time for this year's grant was delayed due to complications at MBDA and the installation of the newly elected federal administration. Two months of operating time were lost since no work could be performed until the grant process was completed. This created problems with the continuity of services provided to TUCC's participating firms, entrepreneurs, and inventors. TUCC did not begin to operate fully until the end of September. In September, the TUCC Director was asked to discuss the objectives and performance of the TUCC Program on a panel at the National Business League Convention. Georgia Tech was also one of the first recipients of the Berkeley G. Burrell Award for minority enterprise development, largely because of the work done by the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center program. Dr. Donald J. Grace, Director of the Engineering Experiment Station, accepted the award on behalf of Georgia Tech. During October, TUCC was busy preparing for its annual Advisory Council Seminar/Workshop to be held November 13, 1981.

Supportive Staff Activity Supportive staff activities were very limited during this quarter because of the problems that arose with getting the grant renewed as planned and on schedule. These delays, in turn, resulted in delays in planned supportive staff activities that lasted until the problems could be satisfactorily resolved. TUCC has added a new temporary member to its staff, a student assistant, Mr. Steven Mizell, a senior at Georgia Tech majoring in Industrial Management.

Advisory Council Activities TUCC Advisory Council members continue to demonstrate their interest in the TUCC program. Motorola participated in a meeting with Trianna in September and has made recommendations for improving its operations and helping the firm expand. Southern Railway and General Electric representatives

-7- have been advising the TUCC Director regarding the development of a three-to- five-year plan for TUCC.

TUCC Participating Firms Activity

One new firm, the AIV Corporation, has requested TUCC's services in connection with identifying a new product line or technology that would enable it to expand. TUCC visited AIV in October. TUCC's activities with other firms receiving its assistance continue to proceed satisfactorily.

TCC Networking Activities

During this quarter TUCC performed no evaluations for other TCCs. However, TUCC has been in continual contact with the Hartford TCC and the Seattle, Washington TCC and visited the Booker T. Washington TCC and the California TCC. Thus, there has been a constant flow and sharing of information about individual TCC programs' products and technology matching and transfer processes. PROGRAM ANALYSIS There appears to be a growing recognition of TUCC as a quality program. One significant evidence of this is Georgia Tech's receiving the National Business League's award for developing minority enterprise. Additionally, TUCC continues to gain support internally for its activities and appears to be building a strong reputation with clients, inventors, and entrepreneurs. • ••••.• • 2...ce

QUARTERLY REPORT PROJECT NO. 98-10-80018-01 A-3036

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

By Edwin A. Bethea, Project Director David S. Clifton, Jr., Advisory Staff Ben E. James, Jr. Hans Spauschus Hardy S. Taylor

January 1982

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY A Unit of the University System of Georgia Engineering Experiment Station Atlanta, Georgia 30332 1982 Quarterly Report November, December 1981, and January 1982 MBD A - Technology Utili7ation and Com mercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER QUARTERLY REPORT

Edwin A. Bethea R esearch Scientist Project Director

Project Advisory Team

David S. Clifton, Jr. Senior Research Scientist Ben E. James, Jr. Senior Research Scientist Hans Spauschus Principal Research Scientist Hardy S. Taylor Senior Research Scientist

This material is the result of tax-supported research and as such is not copyrightable. It may be freely reprinted with the customary crediting of the source.

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Engineering Experiment Station Economic Development Laboratory Atlanta, Georgia 30332

January 1982 Quarterly Report November, December 1981, and January 1982 MBD A - Technology Utilization and Com mercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER 3 Product/Venture Ideas 3 Product/Venture Ideas Com mercialized 3 Evaluations Completed 4 Product/Venture Ideas Transferred to Other TC Cs 6 Technical Evaluations Performed for Other TC Cs 6

Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas 7 Terminated or Discontinued Projects 7 Inactive Projects 7 Resource Searches and Identifications for Minority-O wned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs 7

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 9 TUCC Ad ministrative Activities 9 Supportive Staff Activities 10 Advisory Council Activities 10 TC C Networking Activities 11 TUCC Participating Firms Activities 11

PROGRAM ANALYSIS 12

ATTACHMENTS A. Article on TUCC in EES Report B. Evaluation of the Canal Fixer C. Evaluation of Lock A sse mbly D . Evaluation of H eat Generator E. Evaluation of Solar Fission Generator F. Evaluation of Advertising Module G. Evaluation of Self-Cooling Can H. Evaluation of Barber's Clippers I. Evaluation of Animal Waste Collection Apparatus J. Evalauation of Q-Time K. Evaluation of Dynamoelectric Device L. Evaluation of Nuclear Waste Treatment Disposal Facility M. Letter to Trianna Industries N. Article on TUC C in Business Atlanta 0. Description of Advisory Council Awards and A ward Criteria P. Description of Annual Advisory Council Meeting SUMMARY

The most important activity during this quarter was the Annual Advisory Council meeting. The meeting was designed to inform members about developments in the program's various projects and to establish a format for long-range program planning.

More projects were evaluated and processed this quarter than in past quarters and the projects improved both in terms of quality and size.

It appears that more minority firms are becoming aware of the usefulness of the T U C C program and are seeking its services. Some evidence of the program's increasing visibility is an article that appeared in the January issue of Business Atlanta. INTRODUCTION

This report describes the work performed during this quarter (November and December 1981, and January 1982) by the Technology Utilization and Corn merciali7ation Center. It is divided into three major categories: WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, and PROGRAM ANALYSTS. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER is described under three main topics: Product/Venture Ideas, Discontinued Product/Venture Ideas, and Resource Searches and Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs. Two of these main topics have subcategories. Product/Venture Ideas has four: Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized, Evaluations Completed, Product/Venture Ideas Transferred to Other T C Cs, and Technical Evaluations or Assistance Rendered to Other T C Cs. Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas has two subcategories: Terminated or Discontinued Projects and Inactive Projects.

The PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT section describes TUCC's administrative efforts, its plans, and the various interrelated activities involving TUC C supportive staff, advisory council members, TUC C participants, and other centers in the network. This section has five subcategories: TUC C Administra- tive Activities, Supportive Staff Activities, Advisory Council Activities, TUCC Participating Firms Activities, and T C C Networking Activities.

PR O G R AM ANALYSTS describes the center's progress, successes, problems, weaknesses, and strengths during this reporting period. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER

Product/Venture Ideas

During this quarter TUCC handled a total of thirty-seven projects. Thirty of these were product/venture ideas in the screening and review stage of the corn mercialization process, in the technological and engineering evaluation stage, or in the product development stage. Evaluations were completed on fifteen of the thirty that were considered. Six of the fifteen were closed and ter minated because of their lack of co m mercial potential. Eight of the thirty product/venture ideas reviewed and evaluated were received during this quarter; four are still undergoing technical and engineering evaluation; one progressed to the product development stage; and three of the thirty were technologies or new inventions submitted by other TC Cs for TUCC to determine their technical and engineering soundness and their corn mercial potential

The TUCC staff attempted to identify new product/technologies for three TUCC participating firms. Additionally, TUCC staff is still in the process of providing a TUCC participating firm with market-ready prototype market penetration assistance and is helping another participant whose product has already been com merciali7ed with market expansion asksistance. Actsistanee being provided to two other participating firms were suspended due to the firms' unreadiness.

The following are activity catgories and descriptions of the work performed on various product/venture ideas and the results generated.

Product/Venture Ideas Corn meroiali 7. e d or Nearing Com merciali 7 ation The Plant Guardian — The inventor is awaiting a reply from Sears regarding the results of a laboratory test of his product. He has requested Sears to identify stores in this region that can be used to test-market the product.

Simultaneously, TUCC is considering contacting its Mobil Oil. Advisory Council representative to investigate whether Montgomery Ward would identify stores in other areas for the same purpose.

-3- The January issue of EES Report, a publication of Georgia Tech's Engineering Experiment Station sent to representatives from business, government, and education, included an article about eh Plant Guardian and the TUCC program in general (Attachment A). Kibbie Kapsule — TUCC continues to monitor the progress of this corn mercialized product manufactured and distributed by the Kibbie Corporation. Mike Gallie of the Urban National Corporation, an investor in the Kibbie Corporation and a TUCC Advisory Council member, has requested that TUCC assist the company with identifying additional potential markets for the Kibbie Kapsule. TUCC and Mike Gallie plan to meet in February.

Evaluations Completed

Canal Fixer — The evaluation of this product, a device designed to be used by dentists, determined that the concept was unfeasible. The device was technically unsound and therefore, not com mercially viable. The project was terminated after the inventor was notified of the evaluation results (Attachment R).

Lock Assembly for Windows and Doors — TU C C's technical and engineering evaluation determined that this product was not com mercially competitive product. The cost of manufacturing this device would cause its retail cost to rise considerably above that of similar products already on the market that address the same customer need. Work on this project was terminated after an evaluation was submitted to the inventor (Attachment C).

Heat Generator — An evaluation of the product concept determined that it was very theoretical and that its com mercial application could not be determined from the information submitted by the inventor. TUCC advised the inventor of its findings and terminated staff activity (Attachment D). Solar Fission Generator — The TUCC evaluation determined that the inventor's concept was technically unfeasible and had no co m mercial poten 121. Work on this invention was discontinued when the technical and engineering evaluation was completed (Attachment

Advertising Module — The TUCC review of this product concept determined that it was sound and technically feasible. However, the product concept was not new technology, but an interfacing of existing "off the shelf" technology. Its corn mercial potential depended solely on whether a dynamic marketing plan could be developed and implemented. The inventor was advised to contact the Georgia Business Development Service Center for additional services. TUCC referred the project and gave the inventor the names of individuals to contact (Attachment F).

Drip Funnel Device (for hair care use) — The TUCC evaluation determined that this product/venture idea appears to have at least a limited and possibly a strong corn mercial potential, depending on how it develops and how much it costs to manufacture. Additional development, however, is required, along with a patent application to determine the product's uniqueness. TUCC supplied the inventor with a list of local resources that could assist him in further developing his product. Through a TUCC advisory council member, contact was made with a manufacturer of the material necessary to make this product. T U C C's staff has set up a meeting for the inventor and will accompany him to help gather the necessary information to begin development work. Self-Cooling Can (for the soft drink industry) — TUCC's evaluation determined that this product was technically unsound and had no corn mercial potential as it was described and designed. Work was discontinued and the case was closed (Attachment G).

Double Jalousie — The TUC C evaluation determined that the product concept was technically sound and appeared to have some corn mercial potential. Further engineering and development is necessary before a definitive determination can be made of its actual corn mercial potential Work on this project/venture idea continues.

Barber-Clipper Attachment — Technically, this device is a modification of existing barber's equipment. The concept is sound but its co m mercial potential is questionable and probably very limited. The corn mercial success of the product depends on a workable prototype and market needs. The inventor was referred to the Georgia Business Development Service Center for assistance (Attachment H). Animal Waste Collection Device — This product concept appeared technically sound. Its co m mercial potential appears largely restricted to major

-5- urban areas with enforced laws regarding animal (pets) refuse disposaL There- fore, TUCC views the product as having poor com mercial potential and informed the inventor that the project did not conform to the program's guidelines for additional free services (Attach ment I). Q-Time — The TUCC evaluation determined that the product was technically sound, but was not new technology. Additionally the product concept had a very restricted market that was highly competitive. The developer of the product was informed that TUCC could provide no further assistance but would provide a list of investment resources which the firm could contact (Attachment J).

Fluid Mud Pulser Pump — A visit to the Harry Diamond Laboratories in Maryland to discuss the product and its potential determined that the product has good co m mercial potential T U C C plans to contact its European office to investigate whether a test site can be provided for this federal technology. If one can, TUCC has already informed the Kibbie Corporation about the product and they have expressed interest in it. Coal Conversion Plant — TU C C's evaluation determined that A mtar's feasibility study on establishing the plant was technically sound and its establishment had a good chance for success. A report to MBD A was submitted; however, questions emerged about whether the project's financial requirements could be met in the short period of time the proposal designated.

Dynamoelectric Device — This product concept is not technically feasible and has no co m mercial potential. The project was closed after the results of the evaluation were submitted to the inventor (Attachment K).

Nuclear Waste Treatment Process — T U C C's evaluation determined that the concept was sound and that there was a need for a facility of this type in the industry. The process described in the document, it was felt, was not sufficiently substantiated to go into co m mercial operation. Further proof of its actual workings were needed beyond the bench model to confirm its reliability as a process. T U C C offered its resources at EES to assist the firm in further developing its process, but to date there has been no correspondance from this firm (Attachment L).

-6- Product/Venture Ideas Transferred to Other TC Cs Pro Check and Alpha Point — Both product/ideas were evaluated. Pro Chek was determined to have limited co m mercial potential, but Alpha Point was determined to have none. The inventor of both products was informed of TU C C's findings and advised to contact the Middle Atlantic TC C for follow-up.

Technical Evaluations Performed for Other TC Cs Sunpal Fireplace — Middle Atlantic TC C

Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas

Terminated or Discontinued Projects Canal Fixer Solar Fusion Gas Dynamoelectric Device Advertising Module Lock Assembly Windows and Doors Self-Cooling Can Heat Generator Barber Clipper Animal Waste Collection Device Q-Time Nuclear Waste Treatment Process Pro Check & Alpha Point

Delayed or Inactive Projects William Peel Technical Services — TUCC is still awaiting a go ahead from this firm regarding technology identification.

Metropolitan Pallet Corp. — TU CC's staff considered this firm a good match for a new technology the Center had evaluated. Work with the firm and the inventor has just begun.

Resource Searches and Identifications for T U C C Participating Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs

Trianna Industries — The meeting with Trianna scheduled for December was postponed until January. Discussions about locating a product for this firm continue. The meeting in January determined that the product identified by Motorola was too sophisticated for production by Trianna; however, Western

-7- Electric, another TUCC Advisory Council member has taken on this task. TUCC plans to visit the firm and to continue its assistance (Attachment M). Delta Enterprises, Inc. — TUCC has completed its evaluation of one product/venture idea submitted by Delta. It appears that the product is technically sound; however, its corn mercial potential depends upon the product's manufacturing cost and its ability to compete in the marketplace. Work on other product/venture ideas is continuing. AIV Corporation — TUCC staff visited this company, reviewed its facility and discussed possible products the firm could manufacture. A further discussion determined that the company is not financially ready to handle the development of a possible product suggested by T U C C's staff. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

TUCC Administrative Activities

T U C C's administrative activities increased during this quarter. The director and his staff were involved in structuring and developing plans for the Annual Advisory Council Meeting held in November; in spearheading the formation of a co m mittee to develop a five-year plan for T CP; in assisting other centers in obtaining support for the continuation of the T CP past this year's funding; in meeting with other agency representatives who would bring other resources to T C P to strengthen it; and in assisting the national coordinator with program-related activties. TER E C and TUCC are working together with the Zodex Corporation to develop a T CP marketing and impact package.

TUCC held its annual Advisory Council meeting on November 13, 1981. This year's special feature was an awards dinner. Mobil Oil and Urban National received plaques for their outstanding contributions to the corn mercialfzation of the Kibbie Kapsule. General Electric and Southern Railway received plaques for their outstanding overall assistance to TUCC program development and their use of resources to assist TUCC in evaluating and developing products. All Advisory Council members received certificates of appreciation for their participation and continuous support over the past four years. Responses from the Advisory Council members attending indicated that the meeting was productive and successful.

TUCC Director Ed Bethea met with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Ms. Marsha Hessee, on November 17, 1981, to brief her on TUCC and the overall T CP program. Ted Lettes, the T C C Program's National Coordinator, accompanied him to this meeting at Ms. Hessee's invitation. This meeting led to contacts and further discussion with staff of the Office of Productivity in the Department of Corn merce.

The TUCC Director also met with the A merican Association of MESBICs' Technology Com mittee to discuss potential program interaction and working relations. The result was an agreement by A A MESBIC to review near-ready and market-ready products the T C Cs had evaluated.

-9- The TUCC Director also met with Marsha Williams of the staff of the Administration for Aging to discuss her agency's involvement in the TUCC Program . In January, Business Atlanta published an article on TUCC (Attachment N).

Supportive Staff Activities Supportive staff activities have been primarily confined to evaluation activities during this quarter. The staff has completed an impressive number of projects (fifteen). Additionally they have also been involved in evaluating the plant facilities of two minority firms to determine their capabilities. Both firms have proven to have excellent capabilities; however, both appear to have problems other than production capability. Further evaluation of these firms is needed to determine the precise nature and extent of the problems and potential solutions.

Advisory Council Activities Twelve of the eighteen major corporations comprising the TUCC Advisory Council were present at this years Advisory Council meeting. The awards program initiated this year appeared to be a welcome addition to the program's activities (See criteria and awards description, Attachment 0).

The Urban National Corporation and the Mobil Oil Corporation were recognized for their contributions to TUCC in co m merciaiizing a specific product. General Electric and Southern Railway Systems were recognized for their assistance in program guidance in the process of corn merciAli7ing new technology.

The annual meeting focused on two aspects of the TU CC program: developing a long-range plan for TUCC and informing individual staff members working with various firms about what project activities were practical and what success the program has engendered. This one-day affair concluded with the awards dinner. The guest speaker was Dr. Cleveland Dennard, President of Atlanta University. He provided the group with some thought-provoking corn ments about the usefulness and benefits of the Technology Corn mercialization Program. For details on the advisory council meeting see Attachment P.

-10- TCC Networking Activities Networking activities this quarter have been extremely energetic and rewarding. TUC C has been involved with every T C C in the program. TEREC and TUCC are working together on national T CP development activity; the Booker T. Washington TC C has provided TUCC with a contact in Sears at the corporate level. The Northwest Technology Center and TUCC have begun to discuss the assistance TUCC can provide in identifying a firm in the Southeast that can manufacture a new product N TC's client is attempting to co m merciaiize. The Middle Atlantic Center has requested evaluations of two product/venture ideas submitted by its clients and the New Tech Center in Hartford and T U C C are discussing a new product developed by EES that is near the market-ready stage. This increased activity appears to indicate that the program continues to mature and is functioning as it was designed to.

TUCC Participating Firms One new firm was added to the TUC C program during this quarter: Williams Foundry. A visit to the firm indicated that it is not ready to receive a new product because of financial problems. TU C C is working to aid the firm with this problem, but the prospects do not look good. Work continues satisfactorily with all other firm. PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Establishment of TUC C as a sound and developing project continues. It appears that the program is moving to a new level of sophistication and is now ready to begin to put in place some long-range plans. Additionally, TUC C will begin to structure documentation about its process of co m mercinli7ing products and matching new technology with minority-owned firms. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A Article on TUCC in E ES Report Report Small minority firms helped by Station

Small, technology-based companies market testing as well as financial and which invested $150,000 in the pro- face major problems when they start manufacturing requirements. Several duct and extended a $300,000 line of to develop new products. Unlike ma- years may be required to obtain credit. jor corporations, they do not have results. In the program's four years of The other product near commer- staffs qualified to undertake the operation, two product ideas have cialization is an ornamental house technical aspects of the commer- reached the commercialization stage. plant guardian. This device uses a cialization process. In adddition, many One is now being retailed; the other is spring-loaded mechanism to hold are entering the manufacturing ready for marketing in the next several hanging plants and to measure when business for the first time and lack the months. they need to be watered. As water is experience necessary to market com- The product on the market today is poured into the plant's potting soil, the petitive products. These difficulties are called the Kibbie Kapsule. Developed extra weight of the plant causes the particularly true of small, minority- by a Louisiana businessman, this spring to uncoil in a spiraling motion. owned enterprises, because their device detects and prevents oil leaks When the moisture evaporates and owners are typically newcomers to the that sometimes develop from pinholes the plant's weight lessens, the spring world of industrial management. in the elbows, tees and joints of pipes retracts in the same spiraling motion. Often, they need assistance to get of oil rigs. TUCC evaluated this inven- This movement causes the plant to go started on a solid foundation, and EES tion, assisted with modification of the through several 360 degree turns, a provides that help through its award- initial design, then helped the inventor feature which exposes all of its leaves winning Technology Utilization and to find financing. The Kibbie Kapsule to sunlight. Commercialization Center (TUCC). was installed on offshore oil rigs of Marketing for this device began last Georgia Tech's TUCC Center is Union and Mobil Oil companies. fall in the Atlanta area with nationwide sponsored by the U.S. Department of Mobil is one of 30 businesses, govern- marketing a possibility for this year. Commerce and serves two functions: ment agencies and universities which Sears Roebuck Co., also an advisory • It evaluates and oversees seven are represented on TUCC's Advisory council member, is interested in retail- other federally-funded TUCC centers Council, a group of leaders which ing the plant guardian. TUCC's con- around the country; and takes an active interest in the tribution to the product's commer- • It provides direct assistance to program's clients. The recorded per- cialization began with design Southeastern inventors and en- formance of the Kibbie Kapsule greatly assistance. Suggestions by Tech trepreneurs in getting new products to encouraged the involvement of Urban engineers greatly reduced product the marketplace. National Venture Corporation, costs for the plant manager's injection The program has been in operation another advisory council member mold and made it much easier to in EES' Economic Development assemble. TUCC staff members also Laboratory for four years under the helped with the development of the direction of Ed Bethea. The Center has loan package which was recently ap- done its job so well that recently the proved by the Small Business Ad- National Business League awarded the ministration. Station one of its first four Berkeley G. It is difficult to estimate how long the Burrell Awards for minority enterprise average commercialization period will development. be for most products which TUCC TUCC's principal role is to show in- helps to develop, because this kind of ventors and entrepreneurs where help program has never been tried before is for their specific needs. The Center and there are no landmarks to guide it. coordinates technical assistance on Nevertheless, Bethea predicts that it the Georgia Tech campus and iden- will probably take a typical business tifies sources of financing for en- around three or four years to go trepreneurs. The objective of the through the entire development and TUCC program is to stimulate and in- commercialization phases, but the ac- crease the capabilities of minority curacy of this projection depends on firms who want to expand and many factors. Once the program's ap- penetrate growth industries, par- proach has been refined, Bethea ticularly in the manufacturing sector. believes it will be usable on a broad TUCC provides free evaluations of scale. new products and product ideas. If The Reagan Administration appar- they are found promising for commer- ently values TUCC's work. Despite cialization, the Center staff helps the EES IS helping small minority companies and substantial cuts in government spend- inventors who are trying to commercialize new inventor to formulate a commer- products. This "plant guardian" is one promi- ing for the current fiscal year, TUCC cialization plan which may include nent invention promoted through this funding from the Department of Com- product development, field and program. merce has increased. ATTACHMENT B Evaluation of The Canal Fixer ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332 TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Technology Evaluation Report of CANAL FIXER (Root) Submitted to TUCC By Dr. Horace A. Gunn

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Canal Fixer (Root)" was performed by Dr. Thomas McDonald, staff member of the School of Denistry, Emory University for the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation was conducted to determine the technical and engineering soundness of the product as well as its commercial potential. The evaluation of its commercial potential was determined by TUCC.

Evaluation Summary

The evaluation determined that the product as a concept was technically sound; however engineering the product would be difficult and quite expensive to manufacture. Further it appears that its market would be limited by its cost and therefore make it unsuitable to be handled by this center.

Evaluation Analysis

Several questions arose during the evaluation of this product; they are: 1) would the proposed product be left in the tooth? If so, how does one prevent bacteria from forming in the sieve and the tooth? 2) How does this product differ from other similar products such as the Averbark Orif in Widner, the Peese Reumer and the Gates Glidden Drill? Because of the size of the product, it appears that manufacturing this product will be expensive thereby limiting the marketing since most specialist in the field have the tools mentioned.

Additionally, there was some concern that the name canal fixer is already being used to conote a different process in dentistry and that another descriptive title should be considered if the dentist wishes to persue the development of this process.

December 1981

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ,EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INS-M.1710N ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia December 16, 1981 Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Dr. Horace A. Gunn, DDS 1862 Princeton Drive College Park, GA 30337 Dear Dr. Gunn: Attached are the results of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization's (TUCC) preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of your product/venture idea "The Canal Fixer." We apologize about the long delay in responding; however the continuation of the program was temporarily delayed because of funding problems. Additionally, TUCC was hoping to meet with you to discuss your product concept. TUCC feels that your product concept is sound, but because of anticipated difficulties that would be encountered in manufacturing the product, its production cost would put it out of the retail range of the average dentist, thereby limiting its market and forcing this product to be in competition with products already in the market place that perform similar functions. This evaluation is merely TUCC's opinion about the commercial potential of your product, based on the results of the preliminary evaluaiton, which makes the product unsuitable for further free assistance from us. But it does not mean that the product may not be a feasible idea that can be marketed. Should you have questions about the evaluation please contact Edwin A. Bethea at (404) 894-3833 weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Attached alsi is the information and materials you submitted for evaluation. TUCC thanks you for your interest and your request for assistance. Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director E A B:ds Enclosures

AN EQL'AL EMPLOYMENT ,E1)1., 'CATION OPPORTLNITY INSTITL'TION ATTACHMENT C Evaluation of Lock Assembly ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

January 6, 1982

Mrs. Connie Dukes 4122 Herschell Park Drive Apartment A-6 College Park, Georgia 30337

Dear Mrs. Dukes:

After reviewing your lock assembly with respect to commercialization, we have concluded that it may prove to have limited commercial potential. The primary reasons for the conclusion are the cost factor and product competition. The cost to manufacture and sell the proposed lock assembly is in the area of fifteen dollars (This amount was derived from cost information which you supplied). There are presently locks on the market which sell for six dollars and perform the same function equally as well. Therefore, you will find it difficult to make consumers receptive to the product or find a manufacturer to buy rights to the lock assembly. To give you further insight into the salability of your product, I have enclosed the addresses of two lock outlets which house a variety of locks so you can compare your assembly to others.

If you feel that we may be of further assistance, please contact us at 894-3833, Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.

Sincerely,

Steven C. Mizell Technology Utilization Commercialization Center

SCM/ggg

Enclosure

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENTEDUCAT1ON OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION Georgia Institute of Technology ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332 October 19, 1981

Mrs. Connie Dukes 4122 Herschel Park Drive Apartment A6 College Park, GA 30337

Dear Mrs. Dukes:

Enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's Preliminary Evaluation Report of your invention, the "Lock for Slideable Doors and Windows," and the material you submitted for this evaluation.

Please accept our apologies for the delay in the process; however, the cause of the delay was beyond our control, since we operate the program with government funds and no work could proceed until the program funds were obtained.

Although TUCC cannot fully determine the exact and specific degree of commercial potential of your invention from the material you submitted, we would be willing to provide you with assistance in developing the product to a point where this can be determined if you wish to proceed.

Please contact us for further assistance if you decide to follow our recommendations. I can be reached by telephone at (404) 894-3833 Monday through Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Again, we sincerely apologize for the extreme delay in our response to your request for assistance.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist and TUCC Director

EAB/vmh Enclosures

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION Georgia Institute of Technology ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332

EVALUATION REPORT ON LOCK FOR SLIDING DOORS AND WINDOWS Submitted to TUCC by Connie Dukes

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Lock for Sliding Doors and Windows was performed by Ben E. James, Jr., Senior Research Engineer, and Edwin A. Bethea, Research Scientist with the Engineering Experiment Station for the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. The review and preliminary evaluation were conducted to determine (1) the soundness of the invention and (2) the commercial potential of the product.

Evaluation Summary and Recommendation

This invention is unique, creative, soundly constructed, and appears to be a workable product. Its commercial potential, however, appears uncertain. TUCC's review and evaluation of the product, based on information submitted, indicates that construction of the product involves manufacturing and fabricating a series of complex parts. The cost of fabricating these parts for production would appear to make the product quite expensive to manufacture when compared to the manufacture of products that are already on the market. Thus the benefits of security derived from the inventor's product -- when compared to similar or like products -- may not warrant the added production cost.

TUCC is not implying that the product has no potential for penetrating the market place, but TUCC does feel that its chances of penetrating are limited, based on the present model and on the information submitted.

It is our recommendation that the inventor build a prototype to determine the exact cost of design and production. A prototype would give a more adequate indication of the problems and cost of manufacturing. Once the prototype has been constructed and the product is functional, cost can be more accurately determined. The next step would be to obtain information about the product's saleable attributes from wholesalers and retailers who sell security systems for sliding doors and windows.

October 1981

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMEN,I .EOUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION Evaluation and Review Analysis

The Lock for Sliding Doors and Windows is a unique product/venture idea. It is a soundly designed product that appears patentable. The cost of manufacturing the new invention appears to be quite expensive when compared to similar products already on the market whose purpose is to provide security for sliding windows and doors. The new product, therefore, would be competing with other less expensive and less complex products which perform the same functions just as effectively. Effectiveness, similarity' in design and manufacture, and cost are important aspects that lead TUCC to believe that this invention has limited commercial potential.

Although the inventor's product is more compact, may function equally as well, and is equal if not superior to other products already on the market, its production cost, and therefore its retail cost, would be higher. For this reason, TUCC feels the lock's benefits would not be enough of an incentive to give the product a competitive edge or to equal present products.

Additionally, the new product has several small parts, screws, etc., that could get misplaced or lost, thereby rendering the product inoperable.

October 1981 ATTACHMENT D Evaluation of Heat Generator ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT of HEAT GENERATOR SUBMITTED TO TUCC By CARL E. BRAZELL, JR.

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Heat Generator was performed by staff of the Energy and Material Science Laboratory at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the product concept and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's evaluation determined that in principle the concept appears sound, however, the material submitted by the inventor does not describe how the process will be used to generate electricity. Therefore, the commercial potential of the product concept cannot be determined. It appears that the inventor is suggesting that the process can be used in conjunction with existing technology that transfers energy into power, however, he has not shown proof nor does he demonstrate this in the information submitted. Therefore, TUCC cannot make a definitive statement about the processes intended commercial use.

Evaluation Analysis

The inventor has described a device that takes in energy in the form of heat and reflects energy in the form of heat, however, he has not shown how this energy will be released and converted into useable power. As an example, an automobile engine takes compressed heat and through its pistons attached to a cam shaft converts that energy into useable power to make the automobile mobile. If the piston and cam shaft were not attached to a energy converting mechanism, the engine would merely run without producing useable power. The inventor's device as described in the material submitted is similiar in principle to that of the engine described above. No means of converting the energy into useable power is presented. Thus, TUCC has no evidence that this process can be used for commercial purposes.

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT'Ellt CATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION TUCC feels that the use of a "free piston compressor" is sound but not a new concept. TUCC has concerns about the rise of "free piston" service. Its movement will reach a point where it will become equalized and no movement will occur, thus creating or generating nothing.

A working prototype of the invention would greatly enable TUCC to better understand the device and how the inventor proposes to produce electricity.

December 1981 ATTACHMENT E Evaluation of Solar Fisnion Generator ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

December 29, 1981

Mr. Carl E. Brazell, Jr. Rt. 2, Box 289B Middleton, TN 38052

Dear Mr. Brazell:

Enclosed is the preliminary evaluation reports on your two product concepts, the Solar Fission Generator and the Heat Generator, performed by the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). TUCC was unable to provide a substantial evaluation because of the lack of detailed information about the use of your products commercially. Although both concepts appear technically sound, definitive judgements could not be determined because staff had a very difficult time understanding how the products were going to be put to work. TUCC is interested not only in concepts but whether these concepts will be useable and profitable to the public in general and specifically to the inventor.

We at the Center are sorry we were unable to come to some definite conclusion regarding your products use.

Should you have questions about the evaluation report, please contact me weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at (404) 894-3833.

Additionally, we apologize for the long delay in getting you a response regarding the concepts you submitted, however, the delay was beyond our control. This is a government sponsored program and the present continuation funding for this program was delayed. TUCC hopes that it did not inconvenience your progress.

Sincerely,

c-. Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director

Enclosure

EAB/jchm

AN EQUAL EMPLON'MENT•EDUCATION OPP( giTUNITY INSTITL71( ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT Of SOLAR FISSION GENERATOR Submitted By CARL E. BRAZELL, JR.

The review and preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Solar Fission Generator" was performed by staff of the Energy and Materials Laboratory and staff of the Economic Development Laboratory at the Engineering Experiment Station at Georgia Institute of Technology. The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) requested a determination of this product's technical and engineering soundness and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The results of this evaluation indicates that the manner in which this device is supposed to work is difficult to understand. While some of the concepts about emission of electrons for metals are valid, the combination of concepts appears to be technically infeasible. It is, therefore, TUCC's opinion that no definitive evaluation of the technical soundness or the devices commercial potential can be derived from the material submitted.

TUCC advises that material be presented in a better manner in order to give a more concise description of the device including more detailed drawings. The technical description of the device must include an explanation of how the device works rather than informing TUCC about the laws of physics that apply to the device. Additionally, it would have been helpful if an estimate of the efficiency of the device, in terms of current and voltage output, had been given for amounts of solar thermal and photon energy input was provided.

DECEMBER 1981

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT , EDUCATH )N OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTIC ATTACHMENT F Evaluation of Advertising Module

10 ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332 November 30, 1981

Mr. Larry Edens, Director Savanah Area Office Georgia Institute of Technology P. 0. Box 13817/6606 Abercorn Street Savannah, Georgia 31406

Dear Larry:

For your information, enclosed is the technical and engineering evaluation of Mr. LaRoy Bennett's Ad-Module device and the cover letter sent to him.

We have recommended that he try to obtain assistance from the Georgia Business Service Center, a Minority Business Development Program to deal with this aspect of business development.

Sincerely,

C _ Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director

Enclosures

EAB:ds

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

November 30, 1981

Mr. LaRoy D. Bennett 2108 Norwich Street Brunswich, Georgia 31520

Dear Mr. Bennett:

Enclosed are the drawings you submitted of your idea "The Ad-Module" and the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's (TUCC) preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report. We regret the delay in responsing to your request; however it was caused by circumstances beyond TUCC's control.

The results of TUCC's evaluation indicate that your concept is sound and there appears to be no technical and engineering problems in developing your product concept. However, it is not a new or innovative product. The product can be constructed with existing technologies without any modifications to these systems, therefore this product/venture idea does not come within the scope of the TUCC program and we cannot provide additional free assistance.

We suggest that you contact the Georgia Business Service Center, another Minority Business Development Agency's program that provides free technical assistance to aspiring minority business persons. They can be reached at (404)586- 0973. I will, with your approval, forward them a copy of this report

Further, the resources to assist you with the development of this product are at Georgia Tech and can be obtained through TUCC. However, you or your company will have to pay for these services.

Additionally, should you decide to determine whether there is a need to apply for a patent for the product, the Inventor's Resource Center can assist you with a patent search at no expense to you. For this service you may contact Miss Barbara Walker at Georgia Tech on (404)894-4538.

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENThDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology

40, A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Evaluation Report of Ad-Module Submitted By LaRoy Bennett

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Ad-Module was performed by John T. Scoville, Senior Research Engineer and other staff persons in the Computer Technology and Applications Division of the Electronics and Computer Systems Laboratory at the Engineering Experiment Station. The evaluation was performed at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the soundness of the idea, its commercial potential, and its technical and engineering attributes as a proposed new or innovative product.

Evaluation Summary and Recommendations This product/venture idea appears sound. The technical concepts are attainable with current technology. However, the technical description of the product does not suggest that this is anything whch is new or innovative. The product, if developed, would be a natural evolution for advertising firms.

Evaluation Analysis It is TUCC's opinion that the success of this venture does not depend on its technical viability, but will for the most part depend on a sound marketing philosophy. In order for the product to be well received by the commercial community and become a successful venture, supportive data must indicate that the public will use it.

The uses of the product suggested by the concept developer are valid (i.e., an up- to-date yellow pages and city directory), but it would appear to have limited uses as a "free" video game. To use the product for advertising requires some imaginative data

November 1981

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION Mr. LaRoy D. Bennett November 30, 1981 Page 2

Should you have questions about the evaluation report or comments in this letter, please contact my office. I can be reached by telephone weekdays from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at (404)894-3833. I hope that we have been of service to you.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director

Enclosures

EAB:ds ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Evaluation Report of Ad-Module Submitted By LaRoy Bennett

November 1981

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMEN-PEDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITITION base management technique coupled with some comprehensive graphic capabilities, without going overboard on purely "neat" features.

Although this product would be a natural evolution for an advertising firm it may prove to be a difficult market for a new company to enter.

The development of the product thus requires meshing together existing computer hardware with existing software for a particular use and service operation.

November 1981 ATTACHMENT G Evaluation of Self-Cooling Can ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

October 20, 1981

Mr. Roy P. Gibbens Industrial Consultant 1039 Bee Ridge Road Asheville, N. C. 28803

Dear Mr. Gibbens:

Enclosed is the preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report performed by the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. Additionally, TUCC is returning the original materials you submitted for our review and evaluation.

Please accept our apologies for the delay in completing the evaluation. As a government program, TUCC encountered the recent, unexpected problem of slow program renewal.

Should you have questions regarding the enclosed evaluation, please contact me at (404) 894-3833 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

TUCC looks forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist

EAB/vmh Enclosures

AN EQUAL E.MPLOYMENT,EDIJCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology

, A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

EVALUATION REPORT ON SELF-COOLING (BEVERAGE TYPE) CAN Submitted to TUCC by Roy P. Gibbens

Introduction

The Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of the Self-Cooling (Beverage Type) Can was performed by John C. Lockwood, Senior Research Engineer with the Systems and Techniques Laboratory at the Engineering Experiment Station, for the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center.

Evaluation Summary

An evaluation of the material submitted on the above product concept indicates that the idea is innovative. However, technically, the product appears to be unfeasible because of the size of the product required to obtain the desired results -- a cool can. The product as described in the submitted material, therefore, has no commercial potential.

Evaluation Analysis

This product idea entails the use of a compressed gas which, when released through cooling coils or fins within a beverage can, will cool the contents of the can through evaporation. In order to determine whether the desired results can be accomplished, some calculations of the approximate size and weight of the cooling medium were necessary. These calculations follow:

Calculations

1. If the basic beverage can is 12 fluid ounces and the goal is to cool the can from an ambient temperature of 90 0 F down to 40 0 F, the amount of heat to be removed will be:

September 1981

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITLTION 1.805 in.3) (62.35 1b.3 ) ft.3 o 1 BTU H = 12 fl. oz. ( 3 (90 40) F ( T fl. oz. ft. 1728 in. # of )

= 39.08 BTU - Total heat to be removed.

2. Assuming the density of the beverages to be the same as water, weight is: 3 ) 3 1.805 in. (ft. 62.35 # ) 16 oz. AVDP 12.48 W = 12 fl. oz. ( 3) ( 3 ( fl. oz. 1728 in. ft. # ) - oz. AVDP

Three cooling mediums were considered, with the following results: 1. Cooling by compressed carbondioxide gas: CO2 @ 900 F 1065 psia pressure 12.84 BTU/# Heat of Vaporization 32.79 11/ft 3 Density Liquid Required volume to produce 39.08 BTU: 3 3 ft . 1728 in. ft. oz. V = 39.08 BTU 11 = 88.86 fl. oz. (32 .7 9 #) ft. 3 1.805 in. 3

This would obviously be impractical, since the can volume would be 12 + 89 _ 12 - 8' 4 times as large as the original. Further, the gas container the hold to CO2 at 1065 psia would require an extremely thick wall and would, therefore, be too heavy.

2. Cooling by evaporation of butane liquid to gas:

Butane @ 900 F 49.5 psia pressure 152 BTU/11 Heat of Vaporization 35.24 ii/ft 3 Density of Liquid Volume required: 3 # ft. 39.08 BTU 1728 _ 152 BTU 35.24 # 1.805 - 6.98 fl. oz.

oz. Wt. of Butane 39.08 BTU ( # 16 152 B TU) # = 4.11 oz. AVDP

September 1981 This requires a can which is 1.6 times as large and 1.33 times as heavy -- exclusive of the gas container, cooling coil and valve.

3. Cooling by Freon Freon-12 @ 900 114.3 psia pressure 59.04 BTU/# Heat of Vaporization 80.11 ii/ft 3 Density Liquid 1 11728 Volume required = 39.08 ( 1 - 7.91 fl. oz. 59.04 ) ( 80.11) .805

Weight required = 39.08 ( 16 = 10.59 oz. AVDP 59.04)

This requires a can which is 1.66 times as large and 1.85 times as heavy as the original 12 fluid ounce can, not including the weight or size of the gas container, cooling coil, or valve.

From the three preceding examples, it would seem that the use of Freon would be the safest approach and feasible if the product is acceptable as a can approximately twice as large and 2 1/2 times as heavy as the standard beverage can when the weight and size of the gas container and cooling coils are included.

It should also be pointed out that in order to utilize the cooling capacity of the Freon, the size of the cooling coils and the exit orifice of the gas container must be calculated to cause the exiting pressure of the gas to the atmosphere to be at 14.7 psia in order for the coil to transfer all of the heat to the expanding gas and not allow any droplets of Freon to be expelled into the air and evaporating externally of the can.

The amount of cooling (39.08 BTU) was predicated on reducing the temperature of 12 fluid ounces from 90° F to 40 0 F. However, with the ambient temperature of the can at 70 0 F, this same amount of Freon-12 would reduce the can temperature from 700 F to below freezing. This dictates a variable orifice required to allow some of the Freon liquid to be expelled when the ambient can temperature is less than 90 0 F to reduce this cooling effect or alternatively to control the amount of Freon expelled

NOTE: Butane is an explosive mixture between 1.8 and 8.4 percent by volume and with a specific volume of 6.3 ft. 3/# of Butane vapor at 80° F, 9 self- cooling cans opened at one time in a 10 x 10 x 8 foot room will produce an explosive mixture which can be ignited by an open flame. Although this is a relatively remote possiblity, the hazard does exist.

September 1981 from the gas container depending on the ambient temperature. This introduces a complexity in control of the final can temperature which would entail the use of either a thermostatically controlled orifice size or a timed, partial expulsion of gas. Both alternatives present difficult problems as well as requiring rather expensive control devices.

The valving and cooling coil attachment, therefore, must be secure to prevent the pressurized Freon from inadvertently leaking into the beverage can, either during storage or in actual use, as the beverage can may rupture if exposed to this relatively high pressure.

In summary, because of the high specific heat of water base beverages, a nonflammable gas such as Freon having a high heat of vaporization is required to produce a maximum cooling effect with a minimum volume and weight of liquid at a reasonable vapor pressure. However, the cooling effect of the compressed liquid is relatively constant and must, therefore, be controlled to prevent freezing of the can contents if the initial ambient can temperature is less than the maximum design temperature.

Although it is believed that Freon-12 is nontoxic in these small amounts, further investigation is needed.

September 1981 ATTACHMENT H Evaluation of Barber's Clippers ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332 November 23, 1981

Mr. Eddie Hunt Route 1, Box 95 Wrightsville, Georgia 31096

Dear Mr. Hunt:

Enclosed are the documents you submitted explaining your idea and TUCC's preliminary technical evaluation. TUCC regrets the delay in evaluating your product/venture idea, however circumstances which caused the delay were beyond our control.

TUCC's evaluation of your product idea, the "Adjustable Detachment for Clippers (Barber)," appears to be a sound and workable product. However, because the product has limited commercial potential as defined by this evaluation, (see evaluation analysis) and because of the difficulty TUCC envisions with market penetration and distribution by a minority firm it does not fall within the programs scope of further assistance. Additionally, TUCC does not have program funds to assist in the development of product ideas.

TUCC recommends that the following approach to the product's development be taken: 1) since the product has some commercial potential, a patent search should be undertaken. This service can be obtained without cost to you at Georgia Tech (see evaluation report comments), 2) if the product is patentable, then discuss the idea with some interested persons already in the barber equipment industry, possibly Mr. Bobby Toole, who may be interested in financing the development of the product, and 3) once the development phase is completed you might consider finding a manufacturer and a distributor, since the product by itself is not suitable to support a manufacturing start- up business.

Should you have questions regarding the comments in this letter or the evaluation report, please contact my office. I can be reached by telephone Mondays through Fridays at (404)894-3833.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director cc: Mr. Dennis Primrose

Enclosures

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER EVALUATION REPORT OF THE ADJUSTABLE ATTACHMENT FOR CLIPPERS (BARBER) SUBMITTED BY MR. EDDIE HUNT

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Adjustable Attachment for Barber Clippers was performed by Ben E. James, Senior Research Engineer and Edwin A. Bethea, Research Scientist at the Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology for the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on technical and engineering soundness of the product, its commercial potential and whether the product could be a suitable start-up business or an additional product line for an existing minority-owned firm.

Evaluation Summary and Recommendations

It is TUCC's opinion that the product, "The Adjustable Attachment for Clippers," appears to be a technically and engineeringly sound product, and it may have commercial potential. However, unless the inventor has the financial resources to develop the product and handle other aspects in the commercialization process, TUCC will be unable to provide addiional free assistance. TUCC, therefore, recommends that the inventor find an interested party to help develop the product if he does not have the financial resources to do so himself. Further, since TUCC thinks the product may have some commercial potential, a patent search should be undertaken. This service can be obtained through the Inventor Patent Research Center at Georgia Institute of Technology without cost to the inventor. For information about this service, the inventor may call Ms. Barbara Walker at (404)894-4538.

Evaluation Analysis

Although it appears that the Adjustable Attachment for Barber Clippers is a sound concept and the design can be engineeringly developed, the product has several questionable aspects which renders it unsuitable for assistance from TUCC: (1) The product requires further development; no prototype exist, therefore, it must be designed and tested; TUCC has only limited funds to develop and test products, (2) The

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION product is unsuitable as a single manufacturing product that a new business venture could launch around because it will not generate enough profits to employ a sizeable number of persons, and (3) No minority firms manufacture barber and beauty equipment or related products, therefore, the product cannot be placed with a minority firm. The inventor might consider Mr. Toole as a possible investor since he has expressed an interest in the product and has the means for manufacturing and distributing the product.

TUCC, through its resources at Georgia Tech and in Atlanta, could possibly provide the inventor with engineering help and guidance if he decided to pursue such an undertaking and could pay for the services of these disciplines.

It further appears that the inventor will have a very difficult time getting the product to the market place without proper assistance from someone experienced and knowledgeable in the industry about manufacturing and marketing. TUCC knows of no minority manufacturer with such expertise and from the information contained in the literature about the inventor, his experience is confined to the barber business and not business management in manufacturing and marketing. Thus, it appears that the product, once developed, must be licensed to a firm that already manufactures beauty and barber equipment. This is a proper and valid approach to commercializing this product, however, the guidelines for this program prevent TUCC from performing this service free under such circumstances.

November 1981 ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

November 23, 1981

Mr. Dennis Primrose Georgia Institute of Technology Economic Development Lab Savannah Area Office 6606 Abercorn Street P. 0. Box 13817 Savannah, Georgia 31406

Dear Dennis:

Enclosed is a copy of the evaluation of Mr. Eddie Hunt's product. Should you have questions, please call.

Thank you for your referral and help.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea TUCC Director

Enclosure

EAB:ds

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNIT' INSTITUTION ATTACHMENT I Evaluation of Animal Waste Collection Apparatus ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

January 19, 1982

Mr. Jesse C. Duke 2773 The Fountainbleau, SW Atlanta, GA 30331

Dear Mr. Duke:

Enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's (TUCC) preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Animal Waste Collection Apparatus." Also enclosed is the material you submitted for our review and evaluation.

TUCC's evaluation determined that: the concept is technically and engineeringly sound and can be manufactured. However, because the product appears to have restricted market potential it does not qualify for additional extensive assistance.

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center focuses on providing evaluation services to any inventor/entrepreneur that is desirous of having his innovation evaluated, free of charge. Additional commercialization assistance, which may include development assistance, depends upon the impact the product will have on expanding minority business, diversifying product's lines and the product's potential for growth. Commercialization services are sometimes free and sometimes may require the inventor/entrepreneur or minority-owned firm bear the cost of such services.

Because of the limited market your product addresses, major metropolitan areas with enforced laws governing excretion of animal waste (cats, dogs, etc.), TUCC feels it would not be beneficial to a minority firm as a start-up product or as an add-on product line. Therefore we recommend the following:

1. Have the product developed into a workable prototype. Determine its cost; including manpower cost, material cost and manufacturing cost.

2. Compare your prorotype with products already on the market for workability and improvements; compare the manufcturing cost of the existing product and your manufacturing cost. If yours cost less to produce and can be manufactured in volumes then:

3. Contact the manufacturer of the product already on the market and try and interest them in buying your product or try to work out a licensing arrangement with this and other companies.

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION Mr. Jesse C. Duke January 19, 1982 Page 2

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center regrets the delay in responding to your request for an evaluation and apologizes for any inconvenience we caused; however the delay was beyond our control. As a government program, we are solely dependent upon funds from The Department of Commerce. We were close to our refunding period and since there is only one and one-half staff members involved in implementing this program directly, a great deal of my time was spent on program refunding activities. Even though we were refunded there was another delay in getting the funds sent from Washington to Atlanta and no work could proceed until funds arrived in this office. Thus your project got caught in this process and was delayed. Again, I apologize.

I hope the program has been of some assistance and should you need additional advice, please call. I can be reached at (404)894-3833 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director

Enclosures

EAB:ds ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT of Animal Waste Collection Apparatus Submitted by Jesse C. Dukes

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Animal Waste Collection Apparatus" was evaluated by Ben E. James, Senior Research Engineer and Edwin A. Bethea, Research Scientist, staff of the Engineering Experiment Station for the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the product/venture idea and the size of its potential market, to gage whether the product would be able to sustain a profitable new business venture.

Evaluation Summary

The product's concept appears to be technically sound and manufacturable. TUCC can not definitely state that the product works, since no evaluation of the inventor's prototype was performed; however the patent document submitted for our review showed no technical or engineering flaws. It is TUCC's belief that the product does address the stated weakness of products already on the market and therefore could be considered an improvement in some respects. It is TUCC's opinion that the commercial potential appears limited and would not be a suitable product to support a new business venture unless the business was strictly a "mom and pop" type operation.

Evaluation Analysis

Although the product's concept appears well thought out it appears to TUCC that the markets for this product are very restricted. Additionally, the cost of production may be a factor and could, in our judgement, make its retail cost much more than existing products already on the markets. Whether the "improvements" will compensate for the possible increase cost is unknown at this point; however if it does compensate then the product would not be competitive.

The advantages stated in the literature of this product appear valid. Whether these "improvements" are real and operational can only be determined by actual test.

January 1981

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION ATTACHMENT J Evaluation of Q-Tim e ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332 November 30, 1981

Mrs. Catherine M. Renard Quandrex Corporation 1971 Woodsdale Road Atlanta, Ga. 30324

Dear Mrs. Renard:

Enclosed is the package you submitted of Q-TIME and the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's (TUCC) preliminary and technical and engineering evaluation report.

The results of the evaluation indicate that the product is sound, but it is not a new or innovative concept. Therefore, TUCC will be unable to provide in-depth commercialization assistance but is willing to provide you with names of investment firms that do finance companies selling software programs. Whether these firms are interested in financing your company can not be determined by TUCC. The financial resources involved directly in supporting business opportunities evaluated by TUCC were not interested in financing this product.

It is suggested that maybe this evaluation will enable potential investors to more clearly understand the product and the market.

Should you have questions regarding the evaluation report, please contact my office. I can be reached weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at (404)894-3833. We hope that TUCC has been of service to you.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea •Research Scientist 3( TUCC Director

Enclosure

EAB:ds

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Technology Evaluation Report of Q-TIME Submitted By The Quadrex Corporation

This preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of Q-TIME was performed by staff persons in the Computer Technology and Application Division, under the supervision of John T. Scoville, Senior Research Engineer of the Electronics and Computer Systems Laboratory at the Engineering Experiment Station. The evaluation was performed to determine the technical and engineering soundness of the product, its commercial potential as a new and innovative concept, and whether the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) could provide commercialization assistance under its program guidelines.

Evaluation Summary The technical and engineering evaluation of Q-TIME, a computer software trade secret of the Quandrex Corporation, determines that the product is sound; it is however not a new concept. The product's chances for commercial success appear to hinge on whether it can be sold to small and new start-up firms. According to Q-TIME literature TUCC finds that its activity is restricted in use to only three levels of data categorization, corresponding to the terms "drawer", "pendo", and "manila folder" in filing systems. This and other factors seem to indicate that Quandrex is directing its services toward a specialty market. Further, the functions which can be performed also appear to be somewhat limited. The product can do most of the standard functions; sort by field, compare (greater than, less than, equal, not equal), total and find percentage of total. More complex functions are not provided according to the literature. This seems to further support our conclusions that the product is directed

November 1981

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENTEDUCATION OPPORTUNITS INSTITUTION toward a speciality market. Therefore, the advantage of this product, in view of this faction, may be that the system is designed to service a small non-software oriented management company. Q-TIME provides the same functions that are standard on most of the current marketed data base management systems without the really sophisticated or novel functionality. Q-TIME would have no appeal to Fortune 500 companies and organization of that magnitude.

Evaluation Analysis Q-TIME is one of many small and data base management systems in the market place. It appears oriented toward a specialty market. Whether this market is amply identified can not be determined by TUCC. The characteristics of the market appears to be: Small companies, without resident software personnel, looking for or needing a system that would not be too complicated for their on-staff persons to use.

TUCC has some concern about Q-TIME's sales pitch which implies that it can solve all of one's problems in about two days' time and the company will "receive results immediately." The literature fails to mention that a significant effort will be involved in bringing up any large data base on the system. The company also states "it requires no interface to any existing system such as your data base." It seemingly stands to reason that if a current data base is to be used, some sort of interface must be provided. Additionally, in spite of the claim of instant transportability to any system with COBOL, there could be extensive development problems in adaptation to existing hardware (memory requirements, etc.), adaptation to peculiarities of instruction sets, and the need for interfacing existing data base.

Q-TIME appears to rely heavily upon keyboards and punched cards data entry, whereas newer products tend to try and relieve some of the data base entry burden by using menu selection with light pen devices. However, Q-TIME may have intended its system to function in the above faction by design, since it seems to be focused toward a particular market.

November 1981 ATTACHMENT K Evaluation of Dyna moelectric Device ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

November 3, 1981

Mr. C. D. Ingram 409 Harbor Drive Venice, Florida 33595

Dear Mr. Ingram:

Enclosed is the preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report of your inventory, the Dynamoelectric Device. Additionally, TUCC is returning the original material you submitted for our review and evaluation. It is our opinion that the product as a power generating device is not commercially a feasible idea.

Please accept our apologies for the delays in completing the evaluation of your idea. We were in the mist of negotiating our contract, and the delay was, therefore, beyond our control.

Should you have questions regarding the enclosed evaluation, please contact me at (404) 894-3833 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Additionally, should you feel that we can be of further assistance, please inquire.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director

EAB/jchm

Enclosure

AP': EQUAL EMPLOYMENT EDUCATION OPPORTL'NIT1' INSTITLTION ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER EVALUATION REPORT OF THE DYNAMOELECTRIC DEVICE SUBMITTED TO TUCC BY C.D. INGRAM, INVENTOR

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Dynamoelectric Device, submitted by Mr. C. D. Ingram, was performed by Mr. Ben E. James, Jr., Senior Research Engineer, Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology for the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center.

Evaluation Summary

An evaluation of your product/venture idea determined that your concept is interesting. However, it is our opinion that his innovation is not commercially feasible.

Evaluation Analysis

A review of Mr. Ingram's device indicates that it is basically one that converts stored energy, in his example, from a battery (1/19 on his drawing) and the energy required to rotate a switch (#17 on his drawing) to electrical energy resulting from a rotating magnetic field cutting across the conductors of a stationary machine. This concept is interesting and could possibly be unique, but, in my opinion, its efficiency would be less than other means of power generation now commonly used.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can, however, be changed from one form to another. Further, it could not be determined what powered the rotary switch which causes the magnetic field to rotate, and in what way this device would "decrease" or eliminate the input energy, particularly the magnetic pull.

AN EQt. 'AL EMPLCJYMEN7 'EDCCATtON OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION Usually when changing energy from one form to another, there are system losses resulting in the change efficiencies much less than 100 percent. It appears that the energy output of this device would be less than the power input required to energize the electromagnets.

NOVEMBER 1981 ATTACHMENT L Evaluation of Nuclear Waste Treatment Disposal Facility ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332 November 30, 1981

Mr. Kenneth W. Banks III, President Elite International, Inc. 3079 Campbellton Road, S. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30311

Dear Mr. Banks:

Enclosed is the proposal you submitted for our review and evaluation regarding the establishment of a Nuclear Waste Treatment Facility. Also enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's (TUCC) evaluation report.

TUCC's evaluation determined that the proposed process used in the treatment for grade nuclear waste appears sound, but requires substantially more quantitative measures to demonstrate proof-of-concept. Georgia Tech, through TUCC, has the resource to provide consulting assistance; however the TUCC program funds are not adequate for providing such research assistance.

The reviewer and the evaluator found several technical errors in the proposal and irregular business procedures by GM&D which I felt needed to be brought to your attention.

Should you wish to discuss these points, or should you have any questions regarding the evaluation report, please contact me at (404)894-3833 weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

TUCC hopes that we have been of service to you in your efforts to accomplish your desired objectives.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director

Enclosure

EAB:ds

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Technology Evaluation Report of Nuclear Waste Treatment Facility (A Proposal) Submitted By Elite International for Gram Research & Development Co., Inc.

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of proposed Nuclear Waste Treatment Facility was performed by staff in the Neely Nuclear Research Center at the Engineering Experiment Station for the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. The evaluation was performed to determine the soundness of the proposed project from its technical and engineering aspects and to determine its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary The proposed process to treat radioactive and/or toxic chemical waste appears sound but more quantitative data is needed to substantiate the firm's capability to build a Nuclear Waste Treatment Facility. It is TUCC's opinion that the results shown in this proposal are adequate to support the awarding of another research grant, but lacks enough supportive evidence to move to building a pilot plant. The concept is good and if proven more substantially the process would be of great use to the nuclear waste treatment industry.

Evaluation Analysis The information contained in Gram Research and Development Co., Inc.'s proposal appears to indicate that they need better measurements of their data to show proof-of-concept. The results shown would be adequate to support another research grant but not to build a pilot plant. Most of the waste material from hospitals contains technetium, gallium, or iodine and these were not measured. The material

November 1981

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMEN'TrEDLCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION from a resin column was mentioned as a major item but indication in the documents submitted show they were not investigated. Only simulated cleaning solutions were given any ultra violet dose and results and between ozone dose and results was poorly analyzed. There is little discussion of rate effects in the process; a factor which would be extremely important for a commercial installation as they seem to envision. Therefore, it is TUCC's opinion that more quantitative laboratory experimentation should be performed before the company embarks on a project of this magnitude. TUCC is not implying that the company lacks the capability to build and/or manage such a facility; however, it is stating that more supportive and solid data be provided as proof that their process for nuclear waste treatment be provided. The proposal is timely and the facility is needed when one considers the public and government's responses to nuclear waste, but it would be a disservice to both to embark on such a project without more information.

November 1981 ATTACHMENT M Letter To Trianna Industries Georgia Institute of Technology ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332

January 5, 1982

Mr. Clyde Foster, President Triana Industries Inc. 500 6th Street Triana Madison, Alabama 35758

Dear Mr. Foster:

I regret that it has taken this long to correspond with you regarding our continued involvement with your firm. The delay in my response has been due to concerns about possible cuts in the Technology Commercialization Program. Shortly after our meeting the Technology Utilization and Commercialization (TUCC) and the entire Technology Commercialization Program was threatened by the Reagan administration program cuts, thus we had to reduce our program time and devote a considerable amount of efforts to saving the centers from the budget ax. I'm happy to report that at least for the next twelve months TUCC and other centers have life.

I'm sure that you may have felt that TUCC, like so many other MBDA type programs, were failing to live up to its commitments. This was not the case and we plan to continue to work with Triana as planned. In fact, this letter is to reaffirm our plans. During our last visit to Triana, we indicated that the next step in assisting you with the development of a plan for your plant was to have Motorola evaluate your P.C. board you were making for the telephone company; once this was completed then we could advise you of what assistance TUCC could provide in the expansion and growth of Triana Industries. All plans would be developed and implemented in cooperation with you and your staff.

Since the last meeting the following has occurred:

Motorola has evaluated the telephone transmission P.C. board. Their evaluation determined:

(1) That quality control on this produce could be improved; however, thc cost of both machinery and manpower to upgrade the quality would not be cost effective. Therefore the manner in which you are presently performing the assembly of the product is satisfactory.

(2) That Motorola does not have a product which Triana can manufacture.

(3) That Triana's present capabilities in wire cutting, assembly and 01:1t similar type product lines are needed in the communications industry and other similar type businesses; therefore, this should be the kind of sJb- contract work to seek.

AN F OJA P.A! ED.J - L1 Mr. Clyde Foster January 5, 1982 Page 2

(4) That Motorola and TUCC will explore other firms that may need the type of work Triana can perform as sub-contractors.

TUCC plans to discuss Triana with Western Electric's plant in Atlanta and plan to establish a date when they can meet with Triana about sub-contract work; also TUCC will be working to keep TVA involved.

Additionally, TUCC plans to then explore new products that can be manufactured by your firm that will fit in to an expanded facility.

All of the above is planned for January 1982, therefore, 1 will be in contact with you or Mr. Malone by the middle of January to discuss details and inform you of any new developments. Enclosed is the telephone transmission part.

Let's hope for a prosperous and Happy New Year.

Sincerely, Ezcu_), a Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director

EAB:ds

Enclosure ATTACHMENT N Article on TUCC in Business Atlanta Atlanta Employment Will Expand • Foreclosures on the Farm Will Reaganomics Stifle Georgia's Public Sector?

t+0,1

I by Nancy Neil Not Tech Offers TUCC to Inventors Inventors of an industrial product patty, a member of TUCC's Advisory now have access to free R&D (research Council, is considering the product for and development) and help in finding test marketing in its stores. Another financial backers through the Technical TUCC client is Jan Plummer, whose Utilization and Commercialization "SM-4 Stereo Remote Controller" al- Center (TUCC) that is located at Geor- lows a stereo lover to relax on the sofa gia Tech and funded by the Department and adjust volume without getting up of Commerce. In 1977, the center's first to do it. TUCC handled evaluation of year of operation, Kibbie Pillette, a pe- the product, suggested changes and is troleum engineer and former employee now arranging financing. of Union Oil Corporation, came to In 1980 TUCC evaluated the prod- TUCC with his invention: a device that ucts of 34 inventors; seven of those encapsulates leakage areas on an oil rig. products are now on their way to com- It catches spills and alerts operators to mercialization. As a part of the Minor- the leakage. With the help of the cen- ity Business Development Unit at Geor- ter, Pillette's "Kibbie Kapsule" at- gia Tech's Engineering Experiment tracted $150,000 in backing from Ur- Station, the center is particularly inter- ban National Corporation, a Boston ested in minority companies, but direc- investment group. To date more than tor Ed Bethea says, "We welcome any 30 of the capsules have been sold. Kib- inventor, minority or majority. If he's bie Corporation is now based in Loui- a majority individual, the minority in- siana and employs eight people. volvement can come in the manufac- TUCC is currently working with two turing and distribution areas." He other inventors. One is Calvin Espy, adds, "There are also small companies whose "Plant Manager" rotates hang- that come across an item that might ing plants without the aid of a mechan- make a second line for them, but need ical motor. Sears, Roebuck and Corn- someone to evaluate it."

FrWhat's Inside Atianta's Fortune Cookie?.„ ^tAllr; s.f, 4 4- ' 441 ATTACHMENT 0 Description of Advisory Council A wards And A ward Criteria RECIPIENTS OF TUCC AWARDS

Award for Outstanding Contributions to TUCC in Commercializing a Specific Product

THE URBAN NATIONAL CORPORATION THE MOBIL OIL CORPORATION

Award for Assistance Provided in the Areas of Program Guidance and Involvement in The Process of Commercializing New Technology

THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AWARD

Outstanding Contributions to TUCC in Commercializing a Specific Product

CRITERIA:

This award is given to Advisory Council members who assist TUCC in its efforts to commercialize a specific new product invented by minority entrepreneurs or transferred to a minority firm. The recipients committed resources within their organizations in the following ways:

- Providing advice regarding the proposed commercialization process for the specific product; - Making staff available to TUCC to advise on product development, engineering modification, package design, and other considerations involved in perfecting the product and getting it to the marketplace; - Acting as a resource for product demonstration, product testing, and market analysis or research; - Making a financial investment and assisting in other financial arrangements; - Acting as the first market outlet or assisting with market penetration; and - Using internal and external resources to assist in sales and marketing efforts in behalf of the product. AWARD Program Guidance and Involvement in The Process of Commercializing New Technology

CRITERIA:

This award is given to Advisory Council members who have voluntarily and energetically made their knowledge, experience, and personnel available to the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) to help define productive directions and goals for its program. The recipients committed organizational resources to advance TUCC's efforts, providing specific assistance in the following ways: - Arranging for TUCC staff or clients to visit divisions within their firms whose activities are related to TUCC's goal of commercializing new technology; - Making knowledgeable organizational personnel available who can familiarize TUCC staff with the problems and opportunities involved in identifying and commercializing technology within their industries; - Regularly advising TUCC of products and business opportunities of potential significance to TUCC clients; - Suggesting ways in which their organizations' various divisions could make their resources available to the TUCC program; Involving organizational staff and resources in assisting TUCC's product evaluation and product development efforts, and and advising TUCC staff on the potentials and limitations of certain industrial sectors regarded as potential growth areas by TUCC and its clients; - Arranging for organizational executive and line staff members to visit the plants of TUCC clients to gain first-hand knowledge of client's product and production facilities, and to put themselves in a position to advise TUCC objectively and forthrightly about their assessment of the client's capabilities and the possible assistance they can provide; and Program Guidance and Involvement in The Process of Commercializing New Technology

- Supporting the efforts of the TUCC program in discussions with influential individuals both within and outside their own organizations, describing the soundness of the program and the worthiness of its goals, and, thereby, expanding the resource base from which TUCC can draw and encouraging the involvement of valuable organizations in the TUCC program. Georgia Institute of Technology Engineering Experiment Station Technology Utilization & Commercialization Center

Annual Advisory Council Workshop/Seminar

Omni International Hotel Atlanta, Georgia

November 13, 1981

Friday, November 13, 1981

8:15 a.m. Registration

8:45 a.m. Opening Remarks

Mr. Ronald G. Escoffery, Research Associate Economic Development Laboratory Engineering Experiment Station

Welcome

Dr. David S. Clifton, Jr., Director_ Economic Development Laboratory Engineering Experiment Station

9:00 a.m. Overview of Advisory Council Agenda

Mr. Edwin A. Bethea, TUCC Director Economic Development Laboratory Engineering Experiment Station

9:15 a.m. Introduction of MBDA Representative - Mr. Luis Encenias, Assistant Director of Economic Enterprises

Mr. Theodore Lettes, National Coordinator Technology Commercialization Program Minority Business Development Agency U.S. Department of Commerce

The Posture of the Technology Commercialization Program in MBDA Relevant to the Administration's Cut Backs in Funds.

Mr. Luis Encenias, Assistant Director of Economic Enterprises Minority Business Development Agency U.S. Department of Commerce 9:50 a.m. Questions and Answers

10:00 a.m. Acknowledgement of Mr. Encenias' Remarks -- Recognition of New Attendees

Ron Escoffery

10:15 a.m. Assignment of Members to Workshop Groups

10:20 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. Assemble into Workshop Groups

11:30 a.m. LUNCH (On Your Own!)

1:00 p.m. Reassemble into Workshop Groups

2:45 p.m. BREAK

3:00 p.m. Workshop Reports

Group A Fred Black General Electric Company Question and Answer

Group B Hartford Boykin Technology Research & Commercialization, Incorporated Question and Answer

3:30 p.m. Questions and Answers

4:00 p.m. Announcements

4:15 p.m. Closing Remarks

Mr. Rudolph L. Yobs, Associate Director Engineering Experiment Station Georgia Institute of Technology Engineering Experiment Station Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Advisory Council Awards Dinner

Omni International Hotel November 13, 1981

6:00 p.m. Cocktail Hour

6:30 Dinner

Opening Remarks

Dr. Donald J. Grace, Director Engineering Experiment Station

Introduction of Guest Speaker

Dr. Cleveland Dennard, President, Atlanta University

by Dr. Joseph M. Pettit President Georgia Institute of Technology

Presentation of Awards

Dr. David S. Clifton, Jr., Director Economic Development Laboratory Engineering Experiment Station

Mr. Theodore J. Lettes, National Coordinator Technology Commercialization Program Minority Business Development Agency ATTACHMENT P Description of Annual Advisory Council Meeting Georgia Institute of Technology Engineering Experiment Station Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Annual Advisory Council Workshop/Seminar

Omni International Hotel Atlanta, Georgia November 13, 1981

TUCC advisory council members participated in one of two workshops -- the Program Implementation Workshop or the Program Administrative Guidance Workshop.

The objectives of the Program Implementation group were: o to provide an understanding of the role TUCC plays as the technical and engineering resource for evaluating new inventions from inventors, entrepreneurs and other TCC's;

o to provide an understanding of the assistance rendered to inventors, entrepreneurs and firms in developing products and getting them ready for the commercial market;

o to provide an understanding of the role advisory council members should play when assisting TUCC in rendering aid to inventors, entrepreneurs and firms in getting products to the marketplace; and

o to obtain input from advisory council members regarding plans presented by TUCC staff members for helping clients implement specific objectives.

TUCC supportive staff members presented examples in the following areas to illustrate the various components of the center's program.

o Preliminary technical and engineering evaluations o Assistance in product development o Assistance in commercialization of products o Product identification and evaluation

The group recommended that the advisory council start routing the products to the appropriate markets when possible. The evaluation teams of TUCC each stated that those particular products or companies with whom they worked had been advised during the evaluations of the changes or improvements needed in oder that their business/product survive. The group recommended that some assistance would be needed from advisory council in getting products into the marketplace and providing some financial assistance when necessary.

The objectives of the Program Administrative Guidance group were to discuss specific program concerns and provide the TUCC director with input and/or recommendations for handling these concerns. They are as follows:

o The Continuance of the TUCC Program TUCC is seeking the advisory council's assistance in devising a plan of action that would make clear to MBDA and the Department of Commerce the negative effects competitive bidding at this stage would have on the work that has already been done to accomplish the goals of the Technology Commercialization Program.

o The Basis of TUCC's Operation TUCC needs to develop a realistic budget that takes into complete account the center's capabilities and the objectives and structure of the Technology Commercialization Program.

o TUCC's Role in Formulating a TCP Master Plan TUCC has asked the General Electric Company and the Southern Railway System to advise the directors of TUCC and the California Center in the best methods to assemble a strategic plan.

The following recommendations were presented in response to each program area mentioned above.

o The Continuance of the TUCC Program Network design is the key element involved — exmine where the strengths and weaknesses are of the 8 centers. Our response is predicated on two assumptions of real objectives: (a) reduce the number of ICC's -- competitive bidding threat a partial ruse; (b) our ability to review data and analyses will enable us to be in a position to make recommendations about network size; however, competitive bidding is a program no-no? The level of advisory committee has to be determined. Politics play a major role in budgetary decisions; this needs to be considered. Also, adhesion and image needs to be considered. o The Basis of TUCC's Operations (a) Determine function of funds -- staffing, equipment, etc. (b) Shortfall of budget needs to be addressed. (c) More support and services from advisory council is needed. (d) Formalize program targets -- opportunities and services to be provided. (e) Determine shortfall between current resources. (f) Document and communicate to advisory council members when it is they can commit to; segmented by areas of interest. Complete this exercise for next fiscal year.

o TUCC's Role in Formulating a TCP Master Plan In formulating a three to five year plan there are several key elements involved. The group discussed each in detail and provided the TUCC director with specific examples. These elements are: (a) Data collection (b) Assumptions (c) Issues/Priorities (d) Strategies (e) Objectives - New/Old/Compatibility (f) Programs (g) Resources

On Friday evening, TUCC held its first Advisory Council Awards Dinner. Dr. Cleveland Dennard, President Atlanta University, was the guest speaker. Several advisory council members were honored with plaques and all members were presented with certificates of appreciation. The recipients of TUCC awards were: o Award for Outstanding Contributions to TUCC in Commercializing a Specific Product — The Urban National Corporation The Mobil Oil Corporation o Award for Assistance Provided in the Area of Program Guidance and Involvement in the Process of Commercializing New Technology The Southern Railway System The General Electric Company

On Saturday afternoon all advisory council members were invited to attend the Georgia Tech-Navy football game. QUARTERLY REPORT Project A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

Edwin A. Bethea, Project Director

Project Advisory Team: David S. Clifton, Jr. Ben E. James, Jr. Hans Spauschus Hardy S. Taylor

April 1982

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY A Unit of the University System of Georgia Engineering Experiment Station Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Quarterly Report February, March, and April 1982 MBDA - Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER 3 Product/Venture Ideas 3 Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized 3 Evaluations Completed 4 Product/Venture Ideas Receiving Development and Engineering Assistance 5 Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation 6 Technical Evaluations Performed for Other TCCs 6 Product/Venture ideas Transferred to Other TCCs 6

Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas 7 Terminated or Discontinued Projects 7 Inactive Projects 7

Resource Searches and Technology Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs 7

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 8 TUCC Administrative Activities 8 Supportive Staff Activities 9 Advisory Council Activities 9 TUCC Participating Firms Activities 10 TUCC Networking Activities 10

PROGRAM ANALYSIS 11

ATTACHMENTS A. Correspondence with Data Signal Corporation B. Variable Valve Timing Device C. Coal Conversion Plant in Alabama D. Forest Fire Extinguisher E. Multi-Cylinder Solid-State Cube F. Wheel Chair Attachments G. Fast Brake H. Solar Heat Vents I. Business Card and Key Storage Device 1 Mat-Gard and Site-Gard K. Agricultural Spray Nozzle L. Bolt and Stud Remover M. Correspondence About Double Jalousie N. Letter to the Olin Corporation and Description of Advisory Council Awards and Award Criteria SUMMARY

Activity in both segments of the Technology Utilization and Commercial- ization Center program continues to increase. The center received and handled more product/venture ideas, a total of forty-two, than during any other quarter in its existence. Additionally, the center is working with more minority firms than before in evaluating or identifying new products and finding resources that will aid these firms in development and commercialization activities. TUCC's Director is working to obtain new members for TUCC's Advisory/Resource Council, as well as additional funds to help enhance and expand the center's capabilities. The center's Director has also worked intensely with the national office to assist in developing a long-range plan for TCP, as well as a marketing document that can be used to explain and publicize the national program. INTRODUCTION

This report describes the work performed during this quarter (February, March, and April 1982) by the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. It is divided into three major categories: WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, and PROGRAM ANALYSIS. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER is described under three main topics: Product/Venture Ideas, Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas, and Resource Searches and Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs. Two of these main topics have subcategories. Product/Venture Ideas has six: Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized, Evaluations Completed, Product/Venture Ideas Receiving Development and Engineering Assistance, Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation, Product/Venture Ideas Transferred to Other TCCs, and Technical Evaluations Performed for Other TCCs. Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas has two subcategories: Terminated or Discontinued Projects and Inactive Projects. Resource Searches and Technology Identification for Minority-owned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs has no subcategories. The PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT section describes TUCC's administrative efforts, its plans, and various interrelated activities involving TUCC supportive staff, advisory council members, TUCC participants, and other TCCs. This section has five main topics: TUCC Administrative Activities, Supportive Staff Activities, Advisory Council Activities, TUCC Networking Activities, and TUCC Participating Firms Activities. PROGRAM ANALYSIS describes the center's progress, successes, problems, weaknesses, and strengths during this reporting period. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER

Product/Venture Ideas

During this quarter TUCC handled forty-two projects. Twenty-three of these were new, the largest number of new projects TUCC has received during any single quarter since its inception. Twenty of the forty-two are still active. Fourteen were terminated or discontinued; eight are inactive. Nine are awaiting responses from either inventors, entrepreneurs, or firms, regarding whether renewed activity will occur. Three product/venture ideas are nearing the market-ready stage of commercialization. Evaluations were completed on twelve product/venture ideas; product development is occurring on four, and nine are still undergoing technical and engineering review and evaluation. Two TCCs requested evaluations of five product/venture ideas. Four of these were from one center, TEREC. No product/venture ideas were referred to other TCCs by TUCC.

Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization Kibbie Kapsule TUCC continues to assist the Kibbie Corporation. TUCC is helping this firm with market expansion and is working in cooperation with Urban National. TUCC was informed that a major manufacturer of tools used in the oil industry was interested in acquiring the Kibbie Corporation, and a scheduled meeting with Mike Gallie of Urban National was postponed for this reason. Plant Guardian -- The inventor and Sears have been discussing specifics regarding test market sites, which Sears has agreed to assist in providing. Additionally, Mobil Oil informed TUCC that because of a change in policy, it could not involve Montgomery Ward in providing similar assistance at this time. Soundmate, Inc. -- This firm has completed development of its "new" prototype, and TUCC is reevaluating the product to determine the extent to which it has been improved. Additionally, TUCC plans to request one of its

-3- industrial advisory members to evaluate the product to further determine its quality and market potential from both the technical and engineering perspective. Quick-Switch -- TUCC's evaluation determined that this product had fairly good commercial potential and could compete with similar products already on the market. TUCC has requested that the inventor provide the necessary information to produce a "New Product Report." This report will be presented to manufacturing firms interested in being licensed to produce the product. TUCC has already identified one firm and is sending its supportive staff to evaluate the firm's capabilities (Attachment A).

Evaluations Completed Variable Valve Timing Device -- TUCC's evaluation of this automotive, fuel saving technique and device determined that the concept was sound; however, additional information is necessary before its commercial potential can be determined (Attachment B). Coal Conversion Process (Amtar Corp.) -- TUCC was asked to evaluate the soundness of Amtar's plan for a feasibility study to establish a coal conversion facility in Alabama. TUCC determined that the plan could be implemented; however, the time constraints were very tight (Attachment C). Forest Fire Extinguisher -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the inventor's concept was unworkable and had no commercial potential (Attachment D). Multi-Cylinder Solid-State Cube -- TUCC's evaluation determined that this product concept was too theoretical to determine its soundness or its commercial use (Attachment E). Wheel Chair Attachments -- TUCC's evaluation indicated that this inventor's concepts were aimed at unresolved problems; however, his approach was unfeasible and required additional conceptual design and development (Attachment F). Fast Brake -- TUCC's evaluation of this computer-related device determined that it was soundly constructed; however, as a product its

-4- commercial potential was very limited because a very similar product had already been incorporated in the newer terminals (Attachment G). Solar Heat Vents -- TUCC determined that this product concept was unsound and had no commercial potential (Attachment H). Business Card and Key Storage -- TUCC's evaluation determined this product was sound and had some commercial potential. However, some refinement of the product's design and engineering is required (Attachment I). Mat-Gard and Site-Gard -- TUCC's evaluation determined that this product was unique, well engineered, and could possibly have good commercial potential. TUCC is considering performing additional work for the inventor (Attachment 3). Agricultural Spray Nozzle -- TUCC's evaluation determined that this product concept is sound; however, the invention requires further development before its commercial potential can be determined (Attachment K). Bolt and Stud Remover -- TUCC's evaluation indicates that the market for a device like this is very limited (Attachment L). Double Jalousie -- TUCC's evaluation indicates that this product, if it can be patented, may have some commercial potential (Attachment M).

Product/Venture Ideas Receiving Development and Engineering Assistance Drip Funnel in Hair Care -- TUCC's supportive staff accompanied the inventor to a plastic bag manufacturer to discuss fabricating the product with the plant's engineer. The visit confirmed our idea that the product can be made economically from plastic bags. Fluidic Mud Pulser TUCC is seeking to determine whether this product can be site-tested in Ireland in conjunction with the Kibbie Corporation. Business Card and Key Storage -- TUCC is assisting the inventor with product improvement and matching his firm with a company that can develop a product prototype for him. Mat-Gard and Site-Gard -- This product is a construction site and equipment security alarm. TUCC is performing product testing and a market study for the inventor.

-5- Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation Electric Auto -- Product referred to TUCC by the American Association of Minority Enterprise Small Business Investment Companies. Robotics for Manufacturing Brake Shoes -- This project was referred by the TCP National Coordinator. The company has asked TUCC to assist in determining the best robotics to perform the manufacturing job. Rotary Heat Power -- A use of stored energy converted to useable force- producing power. Method for Disinfecting Dental Instruments -- This product was an inquiry from customers who had been assisted by TUCC. Direct Broadcasting System -- This product was referred by the TCP National Coordinator and involves the construction of a satellite television receiver for direct broadcasting. Water Purification System -- This product was referred by the MBDA program in Chicago and consists of a system for purifying water with activated filters. Power Modem -- This is a technology developed at Georgia Tech and a minority firm is interested in manufacturing it. Collapsible Soft Drink Bottle -- This is a product developed by an independent inventor who has used our services before. Video Disc System -- This is a product invented by a minority firm. It was referred to TUCC by the TCP coordinator. Flexstone -- Product/technology referred by the Alabama State MBDA.

Technical Evaluations Performed for Other TCCs Ideographic Computer System - New Technology Center/Hartford, Connecticut Solar Energy Console Unit - TEREC/California TCC Wave Length Calibration Device - TEREC/California TCC Easy Reader Device - TEREC/California TCC Portable Current Alternating Power Unit - TEREC/California TCC

Product/Venture Ideas Transferred to Other TCCs None.

-6- Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas

Terminated or Discontinued Projects Dynamoelectric Device Heat Generator Lock Assembly for Windows Solar Heat Ventilation Solar Fusion Generator Fast Brake Agricultural Spray Nozzle Williams Foundry Bolt 6c. Stud Remover Wheel Chair Attachments Forest Fire Extinguisher Multi-Cylinder Solid-State Cube Animal Waste Disposable Device Variable Valve Timing Device

Delayed or Inactive Projects Safety Signal Peel Technical Service Wayne Harrison-Knox, Inc. Fluidic Mud Pulser AIV Corporation Coal Conversion Process Delta Enterprises Drip Funnel for Hair Care

Resource Searches and Technology Identification for Minority-owned Firms and Entrepreneurs

Trianna Industries -- Western Electric continues to search for new product leads for this company. Delta Enterprises TUCC completed its evaluation of one product/venture idea for this firm. Additional work that was started has been delayed because of reorganization activities within Delta and because of local economic conditions. Medley Corporation -- TUCC was asked to assist this firm in determining whether it could produce a product suggested by SBA's 8A program. Zebra Corporation TUCC is working on getting this firm involved with assisting the GAF Corporation in formulating a new product concept. Knox Consultants, Inc. -- This firm approached TUCC requesting information on getting into a new business related to new technology.

-7- PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

TUCC Administrative Activities

The Director devoted a considerable amount of time to several national program activities during this quarter. He assisted in developing the preliminary outline of the five-year plan. He helped with the initial completed document. He also assisted in getting Zodex, Inc., focused on the objectives of the program so it could complete a marketing plan for TCP. The Director was also instrumental in getting the Department of Commerce/MBDA to agree to work cooperatively in considering to allow TUCC take on an additional focus: using its resources to identify and assist in stimulating new technology directed toward improving the lives of the aged. Further, the Director has spent a considerable amount of time seeking new sources of funds that would be compatible with TUCC's existing mission and that could expand the Center's ability to provide services to the minority business community. The Director prepared a proposal in response to MBDA's request to provide technical assistance to small rural communities in the southeastern region interested in economic development on a call contract basis and from hard-to-work-with community block grant groups. A review of TUCC's Advisory/Resource Council indicated that it was time to consider inviting additional members. The Director has pursued a select group of persons and firms. The Westinghouse Electric Company has been asked to join, as well as Dr. Jordan Baruch, former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Commerce. The Director of Olin Corporation's Research Center has also requested to become a member of TUCC's Advisory/Resource Council. TUCC acknowledged his request and indicated to him the responsibilities of TUCC's Advisory Council members (Attachment N). The TUCC Director is developing more specific guidelines for the Center's operation and attempting to formulate how all the components of TUCC's effort work together. It is planned that these procedures will be presented for discussion and eventual agreement at TUCC's next advisory council meeting. The Director also worked toward crystallizing TUCC's broader activities.

-8- He has begun to review and systematize the segment of the program dealing with technology identification and resource searches for TUCC participating firms, entrepreneurs, and inventors. A more concentrated effort has been made to identify contacts within the federal laboratory and the private sector, and to match them with participating firms capable of commercializing new technology. This activity is discussed further in the Advisory/Resource Council and TUCC Participating Firms section of this report.

Supportive Staff Activities TUCC activities for the supportive staff continue to increase. This quarter the supportive staff was involved in 42 projects, primarily in evaluating technologies and in assisting product commercialization. The supportive staff seems very much in tune with TUCC's objectives, is working well and cooperatively, and is beginning to provide constructive recommendations and other input beneficial to program development and TUCC clients. The supportive staff has assisted in evaluating the capabilities of participating firms and has helped provide those firms with the necessary data to make sound manufacturing and management decisions. Additionally, supportive staff members are presently assisting MBDA and TUCC in attempting to find ways to dull the impacts the closing of government laboratories will have on SA firms in the paint and polymer industry.

Advisory Council Activities TUCC's Advisory/Resource Council members continue to play an important role in the program. General Electric's and Southern Railway System's representatives have worked diligently to help guide the Director in formulating the TCP's long-range program plan. The first part of this activity was completed this quarter and presented to MBDA. Additionally, Western Electric and Sears continue to work with participating firms, entrepreneurs, and inventors in commercializing new technologies. It is anticipated that at least three new council members will be obtained during the next quarter: the Olin Corporation, Jordan Baruch, and the Westinghouse Electric Company.

-9- TUCC Participating Firms Five new minority firms became active in the TUCC program. The Zebra Corporation, a local paint firm, is being considered for work with the GAF Corporation in performing chemical formulations on a new product. A meeting between GAF, Zebra, and TUCC is scheduled for June. Knox Consulting, Inc., visited TUCC to inquire about identifying new technology in the nuclear energy or nuclear safety protection field. TUCC is helping this firm identify its area of interest more specifically. TBT Company, Tal Buckley's firm, is interested in commercializing a new product developed by Georgia Tech. TUCC is assisting with the licensing arrangement and helping to work out plans for further development of the product.

The Medley Corporation and McLeod were referred by the TCP National Coordinator. TUCC is assisting the Medley Corporation in determining the benefits of accepting a new venture opportunity offered by SBA. The McLeod Corporation has asked TUCC to evaluate a new product it has developed.

TUCC Networking Activity TUCC has maintained contact with all the TCCs during this quarter. It has, however, worked more closely with TEREC than with any other center, because it has been involved in evaluations of four products referred by TEREC. Only one of the four products had good commercial potential. TUCC has performed a technical evaluation for the New Tech TCC in Hartford and has advised the Middle Atlantic TCC on products it was reviewing that had already been evaluated by TUCC. PROGRAM ANALYSIS

The establishment of TUCC as a sound and developing project continues. The Center continues also to move toward a new level of sophistication and is now ready to begin to construct some long-range plans. Additionally, TUCC will begin to structure documentation of its process of commercializing products and matching new technology with minority-owned firms. TUCC is concerned, however, about the slow development of supportive systems that should be put into operation, such as the TMS reporting system, which drastically needs updating and modification. It could greatly enhance the TCP effort if it operated properly and could save the program both time and money. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A Correspondence with Data Signal Corporation Data Signal :orporation 0-44 Hunt Street, INattrtown. Massachusetts 02172 Telephone (6171 926-5080

March 30, 1982

Mr. Edwin Bethea Georgia Institute of Technology Engineering Experiment Station Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Atlanta, GA 3033

Dear Mr. Bethea:

This letter is written as a follow-up to our telephone conversation of March 26, 1982 regarding the potential commercialization of your "Quick Switch", Serial-Parallel Perpherial Interface Device.

I appreciate the opportunity extended by you to discuss the particulars of "Quick Switch". As per our telephone conversation, we are herein formally expressing an interest

in this product and any other products in the same marketing . area.

Again we are greatful for your consideration and await your reply.

Sincerely, szices_ t Clarence L. Walker, Jr. President

CLW/ag ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

April 2, 1982

Mr. Clarence Walker Data Signal Corporation 40-44 Hunt Street Watertown, MASS. 02172 Dear Mr. Walker: This letter is to acknowledge your telephone call last month expressing an interest in discussing the manufacture of new technology related to computers, which our program is working to commercialize. The inventor of the product recently brought us an updated model of the product which is, according to him, an improvement over the product we evaluated. I am presently having staff reevaluate this new model. This evaluation should be completed in about two to three weeks after which the following will occur: 1. TUCC will develop a New Products report (This will be forwarded to you for your review). 2. TUCC will arrange a meeting between your company and the inventor (This is to discuss the product and mutual interest in the manufacture and commercialization). 3. TUCC will explore how it can continue to work with you and the inventor to provide services that are within our program scope and area of expertise. It would be helpful to us if your firm provided us with a brochure of your company and information about its organizational structure and manufacturing capability. Again, thank you for your expression of interest and TUCC looks forward to working with Data Signal on this and other projects. Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director EAB:ds cc: Lionel Acosta Tal Buckley

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 'EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INST, ruTiON ATTACHMENT B Evalution Report on Variable Valve Timing Device ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

March 8, 1982

Mr. John K. Williams, Sr. Atlantis Development Corporation 4121 Cascade Road, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30331

Dear Mr. Williams:

We regret that the evaluation process took this long; however, the delay was truly unavoidable. The concept that you have presented required a specialist in engine engineering and the station has only a limited number of researchers with such applied engineering knowledge. TUCC wanted to make sure that the evaluator of your proposed concept was the right person and the staff person that we identified has been constantly involved in priority projects. Due to the nature of your concept TUCC could only speculate about its commercial potential; however, we do feel that your concept is technically and engineeringly sound. In order to determine the workability of the concept, research and development activities must determine more about its possibilities before we can definitely confirm its commercial promises.

The Engineering Experiment Station has the technical and engineering staff to assist you with this phase of your concept development; however, the work involved is long term and large in scale. The necessary development funds are far beyond what the TUCC program can provide. Further TUCC presently knows of no immediate resources that it can suggest you contact. We will, however, be willing to discuss the cost of such research and possibly during such discussions avenues may surface that you could pursue.

TUCC thanks you for your patience and we look forward to hearing from you regarding your need for additional assistance.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist ac TUCC Director

Enclosures

EAB:ds

AN EQUAL ENIPLOYNIE NT 'E OUCAT /ON OPPORTUNITY tNST TUT ■ON ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION

L., n --ti Georgia Institute of Technology EIS A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Variable Valve Timing and Related Technology

Submitted by John K. Williams

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation was performed by staff of the Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The preliminary evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of this concept and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary The evaluation determined that the concept, although not new, is technically and engineeringly sound. The concept is a compilation of ideas and principles that are already in existence in various separate applications. However, Mr. Williams' concept appears to be an attempt to tie them together in the manner that has not been conceptualized before.

The commercial potential of the concept cannot be accurately determined until the concept has been further developed. However, if the concept is perfected, it should have wide range applications and good commercial potential.

Evaluation Analysis In the literature submitted for evaluation, the inventor has mentioned changes in the overall efficiency in an engine and miles per gallon brought about by the innovation. These changes appear to be somewhat unrealistic since there is no evidence to substantiate such claims. Additionally, the budget estimates and schedules appear to indicate that there is a need to reconsider the budgeting and scheduling of technical and engineering activities.

March 1982

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT E DUCAT ION OPPOPITuNIT V INS1, rul iON This project will require persons with a great deal of engineering know how in automotive design, hardware development, hardware machining, engineering modification, fabrication of equipment, test planning, automobile testing and evaluation of the test results. Thus, TUCC thinks this project is massive in scope and will require extensive work and capital to develop this concept to a point where its commercial potential can truly be determined. However, TUCC does feel that the concept is a worthwhile research and development undertaking.

March 1982 ATTACHMENT C Evaluation Report on Establishing a Coal Conversion Plant in Alabama ELECTRIC MAIL

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's (TUCC) supportive staff the Energy and Material Science Laboratory has reviewed the response of Mr. Ed Cooper from Amtar Corporation, dated December 15, 1981, to Ted Lettes regarding the questions raised in the TUCC evaluation report, November 17, 1981 of a proposed feasibility approach to establishing a "Coal to Gasoline Plant' in Green County, Alabama. We found his responses satisfactory and in a meeting with him and staff from Energy and Material Science Laboratory, February 3, 1982, he further informed us of his company's position and approaches to conducting the feasibility study. Discussions at this meeting made it clear that there are no technical or managerial factors that preclude Amtar from successfully completing the feasibility study and constructing the proposed synfuel plant. TUCC and its supportive staff presently feels confident that the feasibility study can be completed within the given time period (May 31, 1982) for submission to the Federal Synfuels Corporation. Both Amtar and TUCC agree that Georgia Tech's involvement can be an invaluable asset to getting the feasibility study completed on time; further they can play a significant role during the developmental phase of the synfuels plant. We recommend, however, that funds be provided immediately so that work on the feasibility study can begin. ATTACHMENT D Evaluation Report on Forest Fire Extinguisher ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

March 16, 1982

Mr. Al Bonaparte, President A/B Productions 751 Ponce de Leon Place Apartment 1 Atlanta, Georgia 30306

Dear Mr. Bonaparte:

Enclosed is the material you submitted for the evaluation of your product, "The Aerial Forest Fire Extinguishing Device." Also enclosed in the Technology Utiliza- tion and Commercialization Center's evaluation report.

Our evaluation determined that your product, in its present state, is not commercially feasible. Your concept addresses a possible need in the industry, and it is also unique. What is needed, however, is more development and engineering of the concept.

The TUCC program focuses on assisting products which are market-ready or near market-ready. Your product will require a great deal more development before it reaches this stage. TUCC can assist in directing you to the resources, but it will be necessary for you to find means for covering the development costs, as TUCC does not have this kind of funding available.

We hope we have been of some assistance to you, and we wish you well in your future endeavors.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist and TUCC Director

Enclosure EAB/vmh

AN EQUAL E NIPLAD vIVVE NT EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Aerial Forest Fire Extinguishing Device

Submitted by Al Bonaparte

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Aerial Forest Fire Extinguishing Device" was performed by staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Engineering Experiment Station, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the concept as well as the product's commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary and Recommendation

TUCC's evaluation determined that the product, although unique, is technically incapable of functioning in the manner proposed by the inventor. The product, as designed, may function, but when operated in the manner described in the inventor's product literature, it will not perform effectively. Thus, the product as it is presently designed has no commercial potential.

Evaluation Analysis

When an object of this weight is dropped from a height of greater than 500 feet (the minimum safe height of a helicopter or airplane above a forest fire), the device would not withstand the impact.

Secondly, it would be difficult and costly to develop the product in such a way that it would always land erect and in a usable position.

Finally, the product's cost would be far greater than the estimated $2,000. For a pressure vessel of this type and complexity, a cost of $10,000 would be more likely.

Therefore, the product as presently described and designed does not appear to have very much commercial potential.

March 1982

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 'EOUCATiON OPPOPTUNiTY thIST I UTION ATTACHMENT E Evaluation of Multi-Cylinder Solid-State Cube ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

March 16, 1982

Mr. Gary E. Arvidson 5135 W. Mountain Street Apartment B-6 Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083

Dear Mr. Arvidson:

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) has completed its evaluation of your product concept, "The Nitinol Pulsar, Hydraulic Engine." Enclosed is our evaluation report.

Our evaluation determined that your concept is so theoretical that it is impossible to evaluate from our program standpoint. TUCC focuses its services on helping technologies and inventions at the market-ready or near market-ready stage. We are primarily interested in those devices that have commercial potential and which can get to the market place with only minimum technical or engineering modification, especially those which can accomplish this within a year or two years. Where the effort takes longer, three to four years or more, TUCC cannot be of very much assistance.

Your concept is a long way from being developed and will require major engineering and development.

We hope that we have been of some assistance and thank you for your patience.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist and TUCC Director

Enclosure

BEA/vmh

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT E DUCAT 'ON OPPOPTUNrTV INSTr TUT ION ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Nitinol Engine Concept

Submitted by Gary E. Arvidson

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Nitinol Engine" concept was performed by the staff of the Technology Applications Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the product concept as well as its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The inventor's concept, as designed and described, is too theoretical to determine whether it will be applicable commercially. The theory is based on unproven theoretical data in the specific manner in which the technology is being applied. Our evaluation does not substantiate nor disprove the product concept, but merely indicates that more developmental work must be done before the concept can be determined technically and/or engineeringly sound and commercially viable.

Evaluation Analysis

Mr. Arvidson's invention is based on the peculiar properties of a nickel- titantium alloy and experimental work performed by McDonnell Douglas Company and others. To date, only experimental work has been performed. No models of the product concept have been attempted. Until models -- either bench or prototype -- have been developed to evaluate the soundness of the theories, no definitive evaluation can determine the technical and engineering characteristics of the product's concept.

What is required to evaluate this product concept is development of a working model.

March 1982

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTI rUTION ATTACHMENT F Evaluation of Wheel Chair Attachments ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

March 12,1982

Mr. Frank Volin 3221 Quitman Street Columbia, SC 29204 Dear Mr. Volin: The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) is returning the material you submitted for evaluating your products, the "do-it-yourself add-on" devices for wheel chairs. Our evaluation determined that the products are not ready for the commercial market and will require a substantial amount of additional development before they reach such a stage. The products' concepts address a real need for the handicapped and are innovative in nature, but further consideration must be given to their use as aiding devices. The TUCC's Program is directed at assisting products that are market ready or near market ready to become a commercial reality; your devices are not presently at that stage. Georgia Tech does have a center that deals with developing devices for the handicapped; you might wish to contact the director and discuss your products with him. I am enclosing one of their brochures. Mr. Gary Kelly, the director, can be reached at (404) 894-2370. I have told him that I would refer you so he should be anticipating your call. Thank you for your interest and we hope we have been of some assistance to you. Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director EAB:ds Enclosures

AN EQUAL ElvIPLOYNSENT EDUCATION O7.P017TUNl7Y NET f7 UT ION

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Do-It-Yourself Add-On Devices for Collapsible Wheelchairs Submitted By Frank Volin

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation was performed by staff of the Center for Rehabilitation Technology Rehabilitative Engineering Program at Georgia Institute of Technology at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The preliminary evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of these patented concepts and their commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The evaluation determined that the products; a width-varying device for wheelchairs, a back release, the variable wheelchair seat position, the curb hopper, and the wheel spoke protector are products that address real problems for the handicapped; however the products will require a great deal more development before they can be considered market ready. The concepts are innovative and basicly sound, but additional engineering, testing and practical consideration is necessary. For the products to become commercially feasible devices usability of the products need further consideration. Evaluation Analysis

The following is our evaluation finding regarding each product's concept:

March 1982 Width-Varying Device:

This device is basically a crank-operated screw to partially collapse the wheelchair in an effort to use smaller openings such as the usual 28" width of most residential doorways. While the device does offer most of the features noted it cannot easily vary the width of the chair with the occupant's weight on the seat cushion. Either widening the chair or narrowing it will present quite a challenge to the occupant. Other factors not considered include: various seating systems that cannot be narrowed, or cannot be without inhibiting their effectiveness: posture and positioning panels that prohibit narrowing, and positioning the crank in a usable position. The crank must not interfere with the main wheel and yet must be accessible to the user without tipping the chair over or does not add to the regular width of the chair.

Wheelchairs are sized to the user and too large or too small is quite dangerous to the user either by lack of support or by creating pressure points. The user (if he/she can reduce the size) will probably decide that it is too much trouble to extend the chair back to its design width (if it is at all possible because that will be the harder of the two jobs) and will lose the advantages in both the properly sized chair and the specially prescribed seating system. As mentioned above this different width could produce pressure points and lead to pressure sores. Pressure sores are difficult to treat, sometimes require surgery, and in extreme cases lead to bone infection, and certain death.

Any width modifying device should be fixed and not user adjustable. It should be carefully considered before installation as to its necessity and should only be added by a competent therapist.

Back Release:

This remote back release was designed to ease transfers in and out of the wheelchair especially in restroom stalls. The release is much like a locking system in large binders (notebooks). Again the release will require much more force to operate with a load against their seat back, in fact, just to operate the release will require a large amount of twisting that is beyond the limits of most paraplegic persons to do safely. The technique outlined for the use of the back release is quite functional in positioning the person on the water closet, but gets very tricky when maneuvering back into the chair when finished. The user's legs are left in the wheelchair's seat cushion and must be moved out of the way before the person can climb back into the chair, a task which is the primary poblem today in normal transfers. Once the user is back into the chair, he must re-attach the seat back, a job which would require very good coorindation and balance. This requires the user to twist his/her body more than half way around in order to reach the seat back and lock it into position. Throughout all this the uprights of the seat back remain in position and would be in the way of the new transfer.

The above description ignores two additional problems: one, that the seat is narrower than the person's shoulders and his transfer in and out of the device might be complicated by having to lift himself above the normal back of the chair in order to transfer. Secondly, since his feet are on the seat cushion while using the water closet

March 1982 he is very much off balance during this since the water closet does not normally have a back rest. His feet may well be (almost certainly are) higher than where he is sitting. A paraplegic person has little or no use of his stomach muscles. In order to provide trunk support, he would have to hold himself erect with his hands during the entire time he was using the facility. How he would manage to partially remove clothing enought to use the facility is not clear. In transferring back to his chair, his chair would almost certainly flip over backward since 80% of the user's weight is on the rear handgrips while endeavoring to lift himself back into the chair. This is extremely dangerous and probably not achievable by a woman, particularly if she were clothed in a feminine fashion. Variable Seat Position: This idea is to adjust the altitude of the chair when it is on an incline. The proposed is to use the trail present in the castoring front wheels by swinging the turning axis of the casters through an arc. Again controlled by a lever, this time the lever can actually control the positioning in a location or direction available. However, by bringing the turning axis out of normal to the surface the castoring action is greatly affected. Nose high and the wheels will shudder around when moving, nose down and the chair will be very hard to turn. Other drawbacks include: altering the wheelchair's center of gravity (especially dangerous when nose high and going up hill) and interfacing between the main wheels and the control levers. Curb Hopper: This device is based on several ATV designs of 3 wheels mounted so that two wheels are normally on the ground with the third stuck in the air. When this system hits an object too large for the wheels to roll over, the wheels will turn about their common axis and bring the airborne wheel down beyond (or on) the obstruction. The process continues until the wheels can freely roll again. This design works quite well when powered by a planetary gear set. In this application the power has to be supplied by the wheelchair user in order to "climb" curbs. The chair rolls up to a curb, allows the wheels to contact the edge, and then forces the third wheel to rotate down on the curb top. This operation will require quite a large amount of strength and is sure to give a rough ride. But once the front wheel assembly is on the curb-top, the main weight of the wheelchair still has to climb the curb which will take more work than putting the front wheels up. Furthermore, while the front wheels are on the curb-top the wheelchair is extremely clsoe to tipping over backwards. In normal, level operation the wheels will require much more force to roll (more friction) and will not follow turns as easily as with a simple caster (to minimize this problem the front wheel needs to contact the level surface directly along the turning axis of the wheel so that it won't fight the turning action). Spoke Protectors: These are plastic discs constructed to snap into the inside of the 24" wheel rim. They are to protect fingers from getting caught in wheelspokes, provide greater strength to the wheels, and protect wheel bearings. Finger protectors have been on

March 1982 the market for at least 7 years (re: 1975 Everest and Jennings Catalog). The proposed wheel covers on both sides are more than required to solve this problem. Because these discs are curved, they are designed to deform under impact - depending on material. This deformation under impact is the key to increasing the ride qualities of the wheelchair, and either the discs will harm ride quality (further roughening an already rough ride) or will not add the strength to prevent the wheel from being beaten out of round due to falling off curbs. In the worst cases, the plastic discs will pop right out after a nasty crash and to work right these discs can't be very easy to mount. The axle bearings are commonly sealed ball bearing with their own dirt protection built in.

March 1982 ATTACHMENT G Evaluation Report on Fast Brake ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION

I. • Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Fast Break Device Submitted by Lionel A. Acosta

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Fast Break Device" was performed by staff of the Electronics and Computer Systems Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). • The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of this product and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The evaluation determined that the concept is both technically and engineeringly sound; however it appears to have a very poor commercial potential.

Evaluation Analysis

The Fast Break Device functions as designed and performs as described by the inventor; however, TUCC does not see a market for this product. Most new mini-micro computer systems have this capability or the capability can be programmed into the system. Companies with older computer systems tend not to purchase peripheral add- on equipment but will upgrade their entire system; therefore its need is eliminated.

March 1982

AN EQUAL E NII.L 0 N/NIE NT E DUCAT ION OPC.CIR T UNIT iNST IT UTION ATTACHM ENT H Evaluation Report on Solar Heat Vents ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

April 2, 1982

Mr. Albert A. Campbell 1602 Whitman Place P. 0. Box 1416 High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Campbell:

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center has completed its evaluation of your product "Solar Heat-A-Vent." Our preliminary findings are that the device, although innovative, has no commercial potential since it will not resolve the problems you state it should address.

Enclosed is our evaluation report and the material and documents you submitted for us to evaluate your product. Should you have questions please contact my office. I can be reached weekdays between 8:30 am and 5:00 pm at (404) 894-3858.

Additionally I apologize for the long delay in responding and regret that our evaluation of your product took this length of time.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director

EAB:ds

Enclosure

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT E DUCAT ,ON OPPORTUNITY 1NST T UT ON ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Preliminary Technical Evaluation of SOLAR HEAT-A-VENT Submitted By Albert A. Campbell

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation was performed by staff of The Energy ac Materials Sciences Laboratory and the College of Architecture at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The preliminary evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of this device and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The evaluation determined that the Solar Heat-A-Vent is innovative; however it will not adequately address the problems described by the inventor. Additionally, its commercial potential is very poor.

Evaluation Analysis

The product can be attached to the side of homes with ground level vents; however it will not eliminate cold-storage areas under homes, and will not improve the conditions of air under homes built in this fashion.

Vents in homes built in this manner are very small and the amount of sunlight that penetrates will not be sufficient to cause any change in the temperature of the space under the homes. Basically, because only a limited amount of sunlight will penetrate.

Although you state that the thermometer reading placed inside your device is 15 degrees above the outside temperature; the question becomes what temperature reading will one get if the thermometer is placed under the house. It is our feeling that the change in temperature will be minimal.

April 1982

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT EDUCATION OPPOPTuNITy INET LJTION TUCC has not performed an actual test of the product, but has calculated what the conditions would be when a device of this nature is used, and determined that the product will not adequately address the stated problem or reduce fuel cost. Nor will it contribute to warmer floors and buildings. Further, this device would tend to reduce air circulatrion under the homes and thereby causing the limited amount of penetrating sunlight to remain close to where it enters. Further, these vents are often constructed by using staggered brick or lattice formations which tend to further reduce the chance of sunlight to penetrate under the home. Thus, in order to move the limited amount of heat getting under the home, some means of forcing circulation would be necessary.

April 1982 ATTACHMENT I Evaluation Report on Business Card and Key Storage Device ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332 March 16, 1982

Mr. Joe L. Watson P. 0. Box 606 Holly Springs, GA 30142 Dear Mr. Watson: Enclosed is a preliminary evaluation of the Business Card Key Storage Device. The product concept is technically feasible and appears to have commercial potential. Unfortunately TUCC is not in a position to provide further services free of charge. However, if you determine to further persue the development of the product, TUCC can provide assistance such as prototype development, product design, or market analysis on a fee basis. I hope that the enclosed evaluation will be of assistance. Should you have any questions feel free to contact me. I can be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 pm at (404) 894-3833. Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist & TUCC Director Enclosure EAB:ds

16-

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 'EDUCATION OPPOPTuNiTY INSTITUTION ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Technology Utilization Commercialization Center Preliminary Evaluation Report of Business Card Key Storage Device Submitted by Joe L. Watson The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation was performed by the supportive staff of Technology Utilization Commercialization Center. The evaluation was performed to determine the feasibility of further development of the product through the stages of commercialization. The reference points for determining the initial potential of the product were from the technical and engineering base and perspective market base. Evaluation Summary The Business Card Key Storage Device appears to be technically feasible. The product appears to have commercial potential and may find a receptive market in what was labeled by the inventor mode A. The product requires some design modifications, but in general shows market potential.

Evaluation Analysis The device is fairly simplistic and should be relatively easy to manufacture for a firm with a similar product. There was mention in the submitted material that a product of the same nature is presently on the market (however, it is not a business card). If this is true, perhaps the manufacturer may be interested in buying or licensing rights to the product. The possibility should be looked at in depth. Before this is done, additional legal precautions should be taken. The market with the greatest potential may be the advertising specialty market. The product would be an excellent sales promotion to enhance personal selling. High personal sales oriented firms may be a target market for the product. _ The next step which should be taken is development of a prototype. Prototype development would give an indication of cost factors and product design parameters.

March 1982 ATTACHMENT 3 Evaluation Report on Mat-Gard and Site-Gard ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

April 2, 1982

Mr. Charles L. Collins, President D. C. Security Systems, Inc. P. 0. Box 3104 Kennesaw, Georgia 30144

Dear Mr. Collins:

TUCC has completed its preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of your products, "Mat-Gard" and "Site-Gard." Enclosed is an evaluation report of our findings. The material you submitted for the evaluation is also being returned.

TUCC is keeping a duplicate copy of the material you submitted, since the evaluation determined that this product has some good commercial potential.

Should you wish further assistance from TUCC toward getting your product on the market, please contact me by telephone so we can arrange a meeting to discuss the matter. I can be reached at (404)-894-3833 on weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.

TUCC would be delighted to provide additional assistance toward commercialization of your product.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist and TUCC Director

Enclosures

EAB/vmh

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT EDUCATION OPPOPTUNiTY INSTITUTION ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Mat-Gard and Site-Gard

Submitted by Charles L. Collins D. C. Security Systems, Inc.

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Mat-Gard and "Site-Gard" concept was performed by the staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory, at the request of the Technology Utiliza- tion and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of this product concept as well as its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary The evaluation determined that the product is sound from both a technical and engineering standpoint. The product appears to be well-constructed and addresses an expressed, documented need in the construction industry. Although there are aspects of the product which can be improved, it is completely developed and near market ready.

Evaluation Analysis This product is a new application of an existing concept. It is not patented, but appears to have an excellent chance for technical and commercial success. There are no known competitors; however, this area has not been thoroughly investigated. There appear to be no major development problems; however, some aspects of the product could be improved (battery mountings, circuit card box mounting, back-up audible alarm box fabrication and others). The product appears to require only simple technical support and is easy to install. It can be readily manufactured without sophisticated assembly equipment. Overall, the product appears to have good commercial potential.

March 1982

AN EQUAL E INAPLOYNIE NT EDUCAT ION Opt.ORTLINIT v INST IT UT ION ATTACHMENT K Evaluation Report on Agricultural Spray Nozzle ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

April 6, 1982

Mr. John B. Vessels Route 1, Box 69 Webster, Kentucky 40176

Dear Mr. Vessels:

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) has completed its evaluation of "A Device for Removing Damaged Bolts and Studs" and "The Agricultural Spray Nozzle," the two product concepts you submitted for evaluation. Enclosed is an evaluation report of our findings. The material you submitted for the evaluation is also being returned.

Our evaluation determined that the Agricultural Spray Nozzle had a better chance of commercial success than the device for removing damaged bolts and studs; however, both would require additional engineering and technical work before they are ready for commercialization.

The TUCC program is directed at assisting products that are market or near-market ready. Your devices are not presently at this phase. Georgia Tech has resources that can assist in the development of your products, however, and TUCC would be willing to put you in touch with these units. Should you be interested, you may contact me by telephone at (404)-894-3833 on weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.

TUCC hopes that its services have been of assistance. Should you desire further assistance, please inquire.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist and TUCC Director

Enclosures

EAB/vmh

/*N EouAL EMPLOYMENT E DUCA', ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Preliminary Technical Evaluation of An Agricultural Spray Nozzle Submitted by John B. Vessels

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of this concept/venture idea was performed by the staff of the Economic Development Laboratory at Georgia Institute of Technology, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commer- cialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of this product concept as well as its commercial potential. Evaluation Summary

The evaluation determined that the product concept is new and, in our opinion, innovative. There appear to be no major development problems, and it can be manufactured. Its chances for market acceptance and commercial success are, however, only average. In its present form, the product is not ready for commercialization. Additional application research and engineering development will be required. Evaluation Analysis

There appear to be no foreseen engineering or technical problems in producing the described spray nozzle. The product may, however, require redesigning for manufacturing processes.

TUCC's concern about redesign stems from two technically related problems which may hinder universal acceptance: First, there could be a progressive wearing at the nozzle's orifice due to abrasive materials being forced through the nozzle during cleaning. Secondly, the product's versatility is of concern. Spray nozzle design has become very scientific, and most nozzles are multi-chambered or have multiple orifices. Since your device is not multi-chambered, there is some question about whether it can operate competitively with others already on the market, i.e., can it perform the same function equally well, and is its cost less or greater than others on the market? April 1982

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY 1NST iTUT iON Because the above questions cannot be answered satisfactorily, the product is not, in our opinion, ready for the commercial market. Further research and testing are required before satisfactory answers can be derived. Additionally, there is a need to gather more market data on whether a need for the product exists. How large is the product's potential market? This will determine to some degree if its commercial potential is more than average.

April 1982 ATTACHMENT L Evaluation Report on Bolt and Stud Remover ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Preliminary Technical Evaluation of A Device for Removing Damaged Bolts and Studs

Submitted by John B. Vessels

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of this concept/venture idea was performed by the staff of the Economic Development Laboratory at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The preliminary evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of this product concept as well as its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The evaluation determined that the product concept, "A Device for the Removal of Damaged Bolts and Studs," appears to be well thought through. However, our engineering review indicates a need for further investion about its structural soundness. Its commercial potential appears restricted to specialty markets related to heavy equipment repairs.

Evaluation Analysis

There are no materials or manufacturing problems foreseen with this product's concept, since it appears that it would entail only standard stamping processes. Our preliminary engineering analysis indicates a need to further investigate the structural soundness, since it appears that the device cannot achieve the strength of the original bolt unless a large weld build-up is provided.

The market for this device appears limited, since it would be competing with other "easy out" type devices that have universal acceptance.

Other concerns relate to the need for a welding power supply in order to use this product. Welding may be difficult for most general mechanics to perform, thus limitng the product's end users.

Additionally, the "easy out" types of devices have several advantages over this product: they are less expensive, easy to operate, and require no special skills. They April 1982 AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT EDUCATION OPPOPT UNITY INSTITUTION also require no welding equipment. In addition, they are very strong tools, are reusable, and rarely break when properly used.

The inventor's device could have good application in specialized areas or businesses such as heavy equipment rebuilding shops, but its use in general repair shops would be limited to those shops having a welding power supply.

In order to make a more definitive technical and engineering analysis, a functional prototype of the product should be evaluated and a comparative cost analysis between it and "easy outs" performed.

April 1982 ATTACHMENT M Correspondence About Double Jalousie ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

June 7, 1982

Mr. Roy P. Gibbens Industrial Consultant 1039 Bee Ridge Road Asheville, N.C. 28803

Dear Mr. Gibbens:

Enclosed are three patents which were found in a preliminary patent search on the "Double Jalousie." The three patents are of products which TUCC feels are similar to the Double Jalousie and may cause difficulty in patening your product. At this point you should determine if you are going to pursue a patent, and if so, who to hire as a patent attorney. I have also enclosed some information explaining the process.

TUCC cannot provide additional services until a patent is obtained on your invention (if possible). Please examine the enclosed patents carefully before making a decision. I have also mailed your prototypes back to you.

Sincerely,

Steven C. Mizell Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center

SCM:wc Enclosure

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT EDUCAT ■Cirs, OPPOPT UNITS iNET.f U7 ION ATTACHMENT N Letter From TUCC To The Olin Corporation and Description of Advisory Council Awards and Award Criteria ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

May 24, 1982

Mr. Richard A. Hagstrom, Director Urethanes/Organics Product R&D Olin Corporation Research Center 275 South Winchester Avenue P. 0. Box 30-275 New Haven, Connecticut 06511

Dear Mr. Hagstrom:

Recently, Mr. Theodore Lettes, National Coordinator of the Technology Commercialization Program informed me of your company's interest in Technology Commercialization Programs and specifically in joining The Advisory/Resource Council of The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) operating at the Engineering Experiment Station at Georgia Institute of Technology. Ted also provided me with a letter to him confirming this desire. As director of the center I am delighted and extremely pleased of your company's interest in becoming a member of our Advisory/Resource Council. Your corporation will certainly expand the capability of this center and bring to it additional prestige and creditability.

TUCC hopes that your participation will be beneficial and profitable to your company also because it is our belief that the relationship between our Advisory Council membership and this program should be mutually rewarding.

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's policy for participating Advisory Council members (representative of their firm) is that they have a committment of the chief executive officer and/or the chairman of the board stating that their official representative has the authority to commit resources (manpower and expertist) of the firm to assist the Technology Utilization and Commercialization with advice and resource to aid it in its efforts in the commercialization of new and underutilized technology. TUCC, in return, promises that it will not make unreasonable requests of the firm and its resources, and that it will not make requests that are contrary to the Olin's company policies and practices.

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's Advisory/Resource Council members meet once a year, usually the month of November. Although, as a group, the Advisory/Resource Council meets only annually, the center's director and supportive staff are generally in contact with various members on an as-needed basis during the year. Further Advisory/Resource Council members are kept abreast of the center's activity through a news letter and various other correspondence.

AN E QUAL EMPLOYMENT EOuCAT ooN OPPOPTUN.TV 1NE T,ruT.ON Enclosed is a brief synopsis of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center and an outline of the anticipated role of its Advisory/Resource Council. As Director of this Center I welcome your interest and look forward to having Olin become a member of the Georgia Tech Technology Utilization and Commercializaiton Center. Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist tic TUCC Director Enclosures

EAB/ds RECIPIENTS OF TUCC AWARDS

Award for Outstanding Contributions to TUCC in Commercializing a Specific Product

THE URBAN NATIONAL CORPORATION THE MOBIL OIL CORPORATION

Award for Assistance Provided in the Areas of Program Guidance and Involvement in The Process of Commercializing New Technology

THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Program Guidance and Involvement in The Process of Commercializing New Technology

- Supporting the efforts of the TUCC program in discussions with influential individuals both within and outside their own organizations, describing the soundness of the program and the worthiness of its goals, and, thereby, expanding the resource base from which TUCC can draw and encouraging the involvement of valuable organizations in the TUCC program. AWARD Program Guidance and Involvement in The Process of Commercializing New Technology

CRITERIA:

Outstanding Contributions to TUCC in Commercializing a Specific Product

CRITERIA:

- Providing advice regarding the proposed commercialization process for the specific product; - Making staff available to TUCC to advise on product development, engineering modification, package design, and other considerations involved in perfecting the product and getting it to the marketplace; - Acting as a resource for product demonstration, product testing, and market analysis or research; - Making a financial investment and assisting in other financial arrangements;, - Acting as the first market outlet or assisting with market penetration; and - Using internal and external resources to assist in sales and marketing efforts in behalf of the product. QUARTERLY REPORT Project A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

Edwin A. Bethea, Project Director

Project Advisory Team: David S. Clifton, Jr. Ben E. James, Jr. Hans Spauschus Hardy S. Taylor

August 1982

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY A Unit of the University System of Georgia Engineering Experiment Station Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Quarterly Report May, June, and July 1982 MBDA - Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER QUARTERLY REPORT

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist Project Director

Project Advisory Team

David S. Clifton, Jr. Senior Research Scientist Ben E. James, Jr. Senior Research Scientist Hans Spauschus Principal Research Scientist Hardy S. Taylor Senior Research Scientist

This material is the result of tax-supported research and as such is not copyrightbable. It may be freely reprinted with the customary crediting of the source.

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Engineering Experiment Station Economic Development Laboratory Atlanta, Georgia 30332

August 1982 Quarterly Report May, June, and July 1982 MBDA - Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION 2

WORK PERFORMED 3 Product/Venture Ideas Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization 3

Product/Venture Ideas Receiving Engineering and Development Assistance 4 Evaluations Completed 5

Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation 6

Technical & Engineering Evaluations Performed for Other TCCs 7

Terminated or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas . 7 Resource Searches and Technology Identification for Minority-Owned Firms and Entrepreneurs 7

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 9

TUCC Administrative Activities 9 Supportive Staff Activities 9 Advisory/Resource Council Activities 9

TUCC Participating Firms 10

TUCC Networking Activities 10

ATTACHMENTS

1. Quick Switch 2. Mat-Gard and Site-Gard 3. Dental Instrument Disinfection Device 4. Cooperative Agreement with Majority Firms SUM4ARY

TUCC activities during this quarter maintained the steady flow of product/venture ideas being evaluated and minority-owned firms receiving product commercialization assistance. The total number of product/venture ideas being evaluated remains high. TUCC during this quarter received a higher number of requests for technical and engineering evaluations from other TCCs than in any previous period. Work with Advisory/Resource Council members continues to be valuable, but is very slow as compared to other periods. The Director's efforts to obtain funding from other sources continue. INTRODUCTION

This report describes the work performed during this quarter (May, June, and July 1982) by the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. It is divided into three major categories: WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, and PROGRAM ANALYSIS. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER is described under three main topics: Product/Venture Ideas, Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas, and Resource Searches and Identifications for Minority-OWned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs. Two of these main topics have subcategories. Product/Venture Ideas has six: Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized, Evaluations Completed, Product/Venture Ideas Receiving Development and Engineering Assistance, Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review, and Evaluations Performed for Other TCCs. Terminated or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas are subcategorized: Inactive Product/Venture Ideas. Resource Searches and Technology Identification for Minority-owned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs has no subcategories. The PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT section describes TUCC's administrative efforts, its plans, and various interrelated activities involving TUCC supportive staff, advisory council members, TUCC participants, and other TCCs. This section has five main topics: TUCC Administrative Activities, Supportive Staff Activities, Advisory Council Activities, TUCC Networking Activities, and TUCC Participating Firms Activities. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) handled 41 product/venture ideas during this period. Twenty-four of these are still active. Twelve were new product/venture ideas received during this quarter. TUCC performed evaluations on 12 product/venture ideas referred by other TCCs. The New England Technology Center referred one product/venture idea; TEREC in California referred four; New CAST-TCC in Arizona referred two; and the Middle Atlantic TCC in North Carolina referred one. TCC Headquarters referred two product/venture ideas, the Atlanta Regional Office referred one; and the Alabama State OMBE Office referred one.

Product/Venture Ideas The following is a capsule description of the progress of the product/venture ideas TUCC has worked with during this quarter.

Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization Kibbie Kapsule TUCC continues to assist the Kibbie Corporation with identifying other markets for its product. The interest expressed by a major oil corporation in purchasing the product did not become a reality, primarily, according to Kibbie and Urban National, because of the status of the economy. Plant Guardian -- Sears has informed Cheryl Products, the producer of the Plant Guardian, that it has stores in Atlanta, New Orleans, and Houston that will be used to product-test this item. Additionally, TUCC plans to provide the company assistance with its mail order campaign. Quick Switch -- TUCC completed work on its "New Products Report" and submitted it to the Data Signal Corporation for review. Data Signal Corporation's ability to produce this product was evaluated by the TUCC supportive staff and it was determined that they had the ability to manufacture the product and get it into the marketplace. Plans are under way to have the manufacturer and the inventor meet in late August to discuss licensing arrangements (Attachment 1). Soundmate TUCC's reevaluation determined that additional refinement was necessary before the product's prototype could be considered market- ready. TUCC's supportive engineers are working with the inventor to assist him with these refinements.

Product/Venture Ideas Receiving Engineering and Development Assistance Mat-Gard & Site-Gard -- This security system for construction sites and construction material and equipment facilities underwent product testing by TUCC's supportive staff. Its performance was determined to be satisfactory. TUCC evaluators determined that some minor refinements were required before site testing could proceed. The inventor was informed and has also been requested to sign a participating agreement drawn up by the TUCC (Attachment 2). A meeting with TUCC supportive staff and the inventor is scheduled for the middle of this month to discuss a market identification and cost of manufacturing study. Safety Signal for Railway Crossings -- The inventor has agreed to have TUCC's supportive staff perform more detailed engineering evaluations on components of his product. Flexstone -- This is a new type of paneling used in construction. TUCC's evaluation determined that the product has commercial potential. The producer of the product, the North American Paneling Corporation, is having quality control and equipment problems that prohibit the production of a good, consistent product. TUCC is discussing assisting the firm at the request of an OMBE grantee. Business Card and Key Storage Device -- TUCC has assisted the inventor with identifying a company that can develop a prototype for the inventor. Evaluations Completed Business Card and Key Storage Device -- TUCC's evaluation determined that this product had some commercial potential, and recommended that the inventor proceed with having a prototype developed. Solar Heat Vents -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the product/venture idea had no commercial potential. Rotary Heat Power Motor -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the product has no commercial potential. Dental Instrument Disinfection Device -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the product, using the suggested equipment with modifications, could not work well and probably would not be a commercial product. In order to determine its capabilities, a prototype would have to be developed and, before the prototype could be developed, additional research work would have to be undertaken (Attachment 3). Water Purification System -- TUCC's evaluation determined that this process, though sound and workable, was not new, unique or competitive. The commercial potential appeared very limited. Collapsible Soft Drink Bottle -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the product had some commercial potential. As a concept, however, additional development was necessary to bring the product to a commercial- ready stage. Video Disc System -- TUCC's evaluation determined that this information storage process does have some commercial potential, but a working type prototype needs to be developed. Electric Bush (Tree) Killer -- The technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product/venture idea has no commercial potential. Carrier for Single Sheet Paper for Computer Printer -- TUCC's technical evaluation determined that the product/venture idea has some commercial potential. The inventor was referred to by MBDA's Atlanta grantee for additional assistance.

-5- Electronic Multifunctional Device -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the product concept was unclear and, as conceived, had no commercial potential. Flexstone -- The technical and engineering evaluation of this new type of exterior paneling determined that the product had good commercial potential providing the manufacturer could install a sound quality control method for manufacturing the product. TUCC plans to work through the Alabama State MBE Agency to assist this firm.

Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation Electric Automobile -- Product still undergoing evaluation because TUCC has been unable to get in contact with the inventor to schedule a visit to see his product demonstrated. Power Modem -- Evaluation of needs to develop final prototype still in progress. Plastic Sweater -- Technical evaluation on this product -- a throwaway, rain/cold protection device -- is still in progress. Evaluation completion expected in August. Building Solar Energy Heating and Cooling System -- This product/venture idea, a unique method of heating and cooling residential facilities, has been assigned to a TUCC evaluator. Evaluation report schedule in August. Sky Scape -- Technical and engineering evaluation of this emergency escape system for residential and commercial building in progress. Storm Window (snap-n-twist portable system) -- This new product concept has been assigned for review; the evaluation is awaiting drawing from inventor. Heating & Temperature Indicating Device (cookware) -- This device for indicating temperatures for cookware is undergoing an evaluation. Time Accumulation Accounting System -- This work processing device for accounting for work performed on various jobs is under evaluation.

-6- Technical & Engineering Evaluations Performed for Other TCCs

Rotary Fluid Motor -- NEWCAST-Arizona Switch-Off (electronic current control device - NEWCAST Secure Access - TEREC Portable Alternating Current Power Unit - TEREC Solar Collector - TEREC Easy Reader (page turning device) - TEREC Solar Oxy-hydrogen Vehicle - NEW TECH Slab Loss Analyzer Module - Middle Atlantic Flexstone - Alabama State MBE Water Purification System - National TCC McCloud Corporation - National TCC Printer Companion - Atlanta Regional MBDA

Terminated or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas

AIV Corporation Rotary Heat Motor Dental Instrument Desinfectant Water Purification System Video Disc System Electronic Brush (Tree) Killer Electronic Multifunctional Device Ball Joint Pulley/Gear Device Variable Valve Timing Device Solar Heat Vents Agricultural Spray Nozzle Bolt & Stud Remover Wayne Harrison Knox, Inc.

Inactive Product/Venture Ideas Fluid Mud Pulser Power Line Modem Railroad Crossing Device

Resource Searches and Technology Identification for Minority-Owned Firms and Entrepreneurs

Trianna Industries -- Western Electric search for new product for this firm continues.

-7- Delta Enterprises -- Additional technology search continues for Delta. Medley Corporation -- TUCC discussed progress of work to be performed for this firm with Mr. Medley; firm is still awaiting response from SBA. Knox Consulting Firm -- TUCC advised this company that it would discontinue its efforts for this firm because of the restricted technology area it desired to complete in. TUCC felt it could not satisfactorily assist the company's effort. Zebra Corporation -- TUCC and its supportive staff met with representatives for the GAF Corporation. GAF asked that Zebra submit a proposal to GAF to perform new product formulations on a chemical product to be used by the Defense Department. TUCC's supportive staff from the Energy & Material Sciences Laboratory will assist in putting the proposal together and Georgia Tech's Economic Development Laboratory will be a subcontractor to Zebra. Amtar Corporation -- Work with this corporation continues. Efforts to help Amtar consist of searching for venture capital. Our effort appears to have a very small chance of success. Southeastern Machine Company -- Evaluation of this company's proposal is under way. Response should be forthcoming in August. Acosta and Associates -- This company, the developer of "Quick Switch," is planning to meet with Data Signal in August. The meeting was arranged by TUCC. D.C. Security Systems -- This majority firm has signed TUCC's Cooperative Agreement to involve minority firms in its commercialization efforts. Plans are underway to test and perform a general market study for the product. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

TUCC Administrative Activities The Director worked on several activities during this quarter to improve TUCC operations and enhance its funding resources. Several discussions with MBDA and the Administration on Aging (AOA) regarding the submission of a proposal on aging took place during this quarter. After several briefings and discussions about our capabilities and what AOA wanted, it was agreed that Georgia Tech was not the agency that should handle the first phase of this project, but that its input was more suitable for dealing with Phase II of the project. Indications are that the proposal submitted to the Atlanta Regional Office for providing assistance to rural areas in this region is under consideration. Since we have not had any indication that our proposal was unsuitable, we assume that we are still in the running. TUCC has, with assistance from its legal office, developed a cooperative agreement document which firms and entrepreneurs will sign when we assist them with commercialization efforts. It further assures that when majority firms are assisted in developing a product, they will utilize the services and resources of minority firms in their commercialization efforts (Attachment 4). Plans for the Annual Advisory/Resource Council meeting continues. A location has been secured and the program agenda and format is being developed.

Supportive Staff Activities

TUCC's supportive staff continues to perform admirably on evaluations and project development activities.

Advisory/Resource Council Activities

No significant activities occurred during this reporting period with Advisory/Resource Council members. Western Electric continues to search

-9- for a product for Trianna, and Sears continues to work with Cheyrl Products. TUCC has had no response from the Olin Corporation or the Westinghouse Electric Corporation regarding their follow-up interest in the TUCC program.

TUCC Participating Firms

Zebra Corporation, with TUCC's assistance has submitted a proposal to the GAF Corporation regarding performing paint formulations on GAF's polymers. The Data Signal Corporation plans to meet with the inventor of Quick Switch, Acosta and Associates, in August to discuss the manufacturing details of producing the product.

TUCC Networking Activities

TUCC has performed technical and engineering evaluations for four TCCs and the volume of requests has been the highest ever. TUCC has received no complaints from its requestors and assumes its responses have been satisfactory. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1

Quick Switch ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Manufacturer's Capability Report of Data Signal Corporation 40-44 Hunt Street, Watertown, MA 02172

A technical field investigation was conducted by staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate Data Signal's ability to manufacture a new product, "Quick Switch." Interviews were held with the chief executive office of the corporation and with key staff members. Summary

Data Signal has experience in both hardware and software digital systems, which gives it the background to handle the manufacture of this product and any problems which might arise. The company has a strong management team and control over its inventory, finance, and direct labor. Further, it exhibits strong technical capabilities in the digital field. It has access to capital for financial inventory, and, although it is not presently in constant volume production, it has made a management committment to producing "Quick Switch."

The company has a trained and capable work force available, now employed part-time. Its biggest adjustment would be adapting from a low-volume production system with 100 percent quality control to a high-volume production system with quality control balanced for maximum return.

It is TUCC's opinion that Data Signal Corporation is fully capable, has the potential to be highly efficient, and would be an excellent choice as manufacturer of this product. Corporate Evaluation Analysis

July 1982

AN ECaLtAL EMPLOYMENT ECIUCAT ION OPPOIATufsj , 7 0,457 ■ rLJT ION Data Signal is, at this time, a combined services provider and systems manufacturer. Its services provide a basis for steady cash flow, thereby modu- lating working capital needs. The systems manufactured by DSC are, in general, large ticket, one-off, blends of existing hardware and newly developed hardware. The systems have exceptionally high quality requirements and have provided DSC with experience in manufacturing (including wave soldering) complex electronic circuits.

Senior Management -- Senior management at DSC appears thoroughly capable, experienced, and committed to acquiring a mass production capability to complement the very cyclical nature of its systems products. Management was knowledgeable about all phases of the business in particular and the needs required to move into mass production. In those areas in which DSC did not have experience (mass marketing, production control), senior management had a grasp of exactly where the shortfall lay and either had plans to overcome that shortfall or line managers with experience in the area. The management team seemed just that --a well organized, well run, and committed team.

Line Managers and Engineering -- The various line managers and engineering staff members under control of Mr. David Reich seem thoroughly competent in their respective areas. While design experience for mass production was not evidenced, the design and production experience (in spurts) on the systems products indicates a strong awareness of both producibility and maintainability. While some problems are to be expected, DSC should be able to overcome them with no major implementation delays.

Financial -- The comptroller, Mr. Robert Royster, is one of the strengths of the management team. The requirement for job-by-job accountability has been fully met. Consequently, strong, effective measures have been formulated to record and control costs and to fairly allocate overheads. Mr. Royster was also fully aware of the capital planning and forecasting needs for production and had already formulated conceptual plans for filling these needs.

Production Processing -- PCB layout and fabrication is subcontracted and is supported by CAD/CAM back-up. Several vendors are in the immediate area, and a solid relationship has already been established with at least one. Several component vendors are in the immediate area, and inspection of several work in process boards indicates a very high quality blend of design, layout component

July 1982 selection, assembly, and soldering. Mr. Ken McGreggor was fully aware of production wave soldering techniques and problems, component purchasing trade- offs, and quality control methods. A formal QC/QA department has been designed on paper and can easily be implemented. Provisions have been made for vendor approval/vendor control. Individual board workmanship was excellent.

Inventory Control -- The nature of systems and warrantee work compounds the problems associated with inventory control. DSC has plans to physically segregate the volume production area and its associated inventory. The plans, combined with the effective separation and control available through the existing accounting system, will allow DSC to effect the tighter control required to cost effectively produce production parts.

Physical Facilities -- The current facilities occupy 4,000 square feet of manufacturing space on a second floor in Watertown, along with 3,000 square feet of office and storage space. Provisions and plans exist to physically separate the volume production area. The space is adequate for initial operations, and no major conflicts with systems production is foreseen. In addition, negotiations are currently underway for 22,000 feet of space in nearby Waltham. Parking in and around the plant is difficult but not impossible. This is not an unusual situation for that area. Truck docks and elevators are available if needed. HVAC is adequate and lighting is good.

Work Force -- DSC does not have a large, full-time production staff. A number of full-time, experience staff members service, prototype, and modify the systems. These people could form the core of a skilled production force. In addition, there are many well-trained, experienced electronics assembly workers available in the area who have previously been used by DSC and who could be quickly recruited for full-time production. The average factory wage is somewhat higher than in the South, but the productivity of these experienced workers is expected to make up the wage differential.

Marketing -- Formal marketing plans have not yet been made. However, the management has explored several channels and identified questions about the product which, when answered, will help determine future marketing plans.

July 1982 Attachment 2

Mat-Gard and Site-Gard Georgia Institute of Technology ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332

OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION July 26, 1982 Telex: 542507 GTRIOCAATL Pox: (404) 894-3120 Phone (4041894— 4812

Mr. Charles L. Collins D.C. Security Systems 1471 Woolf Valley Court Ackworth, GA 30301

Subject: Participating Agreement under A-3036

Dear Mr. Collins:

This letter will serve as the Participating Agreement between the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) and D.C. Security Systems, in order to set forth our mutual understanding of each party's goals, commitments and responsibilities.

TUCC is a part of the National Technology Commercialization Program, dedicated to the process of bringing technology based products and services into the marketplace. Each center operates in a private sector mode but is partially funded with public monies. The program is partially sponsored by the Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency. Therefore, it is also trying to find a productive place in this developing process for minority inventors, minority entrepreneurs, minority industries, and technology related minority service businesses.

The objective of the Technology Commercialization Program is three- fold: (1) the delivery of more technology into the nation's economic development stream; (2) the improvement of national productivity through new technology; and (3) the identification and assessment of technologies that will enable minorities to participate in technology- based industries. TUCC hopes to accomplish this objective through your firm's participation in the program and with the cooperation of management. The cooperation of management in the structuring and implementation of a development plan is essential to its success.

The development plan, which has been formulated with your firm's manaapment, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is hereby incorporated by reference into this agreement as TUCC's statement of work. Your firm will be informed of the monthly activities and will be consulted when changes are recommended in the overall plan. Management and TUCC with the appropriate input of the Advisory Council must work together throughout this relationship in order to effect modifications in the plan as needs and circumstances change.

An Equal Educational & Employment Inniturion" Mr. Charles L. Collins July 26, 1982 Page 2

By your acknowledgement below you agree that all writings produced by TUCC under this agreement shall be the sole property of the Institute and we shall have the exclusive rights to copyright such writings. However, we agree to make our best efforts to grant a non-exclusive right to your firm to publish such writings when circumstances will permit.

Because the program is carried out in the Minority Business Development Agency, it is required that minority firms be involved at some point in the plan. It can be the inventor, the manufacturer, or the company making the test, developing the marketing plan or building the prototype, or any other aspect of the commercialization process. It is essential that we have the firm's cooperation in this area as well as throughout all phases of our working relationship.

The goals of TUCC and your firm can be accomplished through our cooperative efforts in designing and implementing the development plan. It is understood that if at any time, in the judgment of TUCC, the necessary cooperation from your firm in carrying out any of TUCC's policies and goals is not forthcoming, this agreement may be terminated upon reasonable notice. If your firm is not satisfied with the efforts of TUCC at any time, it has the option of seeking a resolution of the matter by bringing its grievance before the regional office or the national Technology Commercialization Office in Washington, D.C.

If the provisions of this Participating Agreement are acceptable, please so indicate as noted below and return one copy of this Agreement to the undersigned.

Sincerely,

William T. Gerl

Dwigh L. OFFICE OF C ADMINISTRATION Receipt Acknowledged and Accepted

.4)gLg/ r11), By

Title ..Z.5,•44.41/---

Date 4,F. Georgia Institute of Technology ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION ATLANTA. GEORGIA 33332

XTENS ION LASORATORY sores Ana Oft* 0. Beall% Tarots( Strew on, Georgia 30117 de 404/114-100

April 16, 1982

TO: Ed Bethea/TUCC

FROM: Harris Johnson

SUBJECT: D. C. SECURITY YSTEMS, Mr. Collins, President

Reference our meeting of 4/16/82. I believe we are in basic agreement that we should define the scope of this project in current terms as two actions followed by two programs.

Next Two Actions:

(1) Test Performance) (2) Patent Search

Thege actions will verify design, function, manufacturability, and eliminate the concern of patent infringement.

1 A program to test the units will need to be developed - expected development time 3 weeks.

Next Two Programs:

(1) Identify and quantify various market segments and potential. (2) Determine sources and timing of venture capital.

Under Program 1

I. Identify various potential market segments. This should include descriptions of the segment; any size or geographic boundries, how they might be identified if known, who is the decision maker wihin the segment, and what features of the unit appeal to that segment. - Action by W. Collins

II. Identify a geographic or other boundry (site, f of employees, etc.) for a sample of each segment. - Action by Harvey Diamond

ANOmmdADAPLA.mwanmaxwrioNoimmoimunirryparrinnioN Ed Bethea Page 2 April 16, 1982

III. Identify requirements for a market sampling survey for each segment. Possibilities might include: Slick 3-ring binder 'if/color pictures of units and installations Testamonials from current users Test Results Actual unit display for builders supply Market survey--person to person? Mail? Telephone? - Action by Team--Mr. Collins, Steve Mizel, H. Johnson, Harvey Diamond t-et-•-. IV. Develop Business Plan Financial Marketing Distribution - Action by Team

Under Program 2:

Identify venture capital options and timing. - Action by Team Attachment 3

Dental Instrument Disinfection Device ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332 TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER EVALUATION REPORT of A DENTAL-MEDICAL INSTRUMENT WASHER CONCEPT

Submitted by Franklin Law, D. C. Dental Supply, Inc.

Introduction

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of this concept was performed by staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory and Emory University's Dental Clinic, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the proposed product, and its commercial feasibility and potential.

Evaluation Summary

An evaluation of the concept, "Dental-Medical Instrument Washer," determined that its technical and engineering feasibility is questionable. A review of the material submitted by Mr. Law and a discussion of the equipment to be used in disinfecting the instruments indicated that there is questionable reliability in the use of this process. Since methods exist that already accomplish the same objective, it would also be difficult to penetrate a market. Although there is a need for a process that would accomplish both disinfecting and sterilization in one process, it is doubtful that the suggessted equipment for use in this process could accomplish the task without a great deal of engineering modification. From an engineering standpoint, the concept raises serious questions about whether the equipment (a commercial dishwasher) can accomplish the entrepreneur's objective. Before a determination of whether the product concept and the equipment would meet medical standards, several tests would have to be conducted.

May 1982

AN E QUAL E kael_ 0 E DLIC A .0 . INS T 11 U ,4 OP.POR 1 UN T N ∎ON Evaluation Analysis

In order to determine whether a commercially available dishwashing unit could perform a washing and disinfecting operation for dental and medical instruments, extensive testing would be required. Additionally, in reviewing the the literature submitted concerning the recommended disinfectant -- Sporicidin -- and the equipment suggested, several questions occur:

1. Sporicidin seems to be compatible with materials used in dishwasher construction. Some tests, however, should be performed to insure unwanted chemical reactions do not occur and contaminate the washed items.

2. The literature speaks of a corrosion problem with carbon steel and dental burrs. There is a good chance that this will be amplified in the spray mode and interaction with the atmosphere (oxygen) is possible.

3. Starting with the rinse cycle, the majority of the Sporicidin is likely to be removed. The detergent dispenser on dishwashers are designed for powders and thus could lose liquids during the short rinse cycle. The rinse additive dispenser may be modified to perform the Sporicidin release function.

4. The main wash cycle appears to require 2.7 gallons of water (12 quarts). This would require 22 ounces of undiluted Sporicidin at a cost of $54, per the sales literature. Economic comparison with present methods should be documented.

5. The major question will be the effectiveness of a spray versus total immersion of the instruments. This can be resolved only by use of approved test procedures.

To definitively answer the above questions, which are mainly of an engineering and medical nature, extensive laboratory testing and evaluation would be required. The expense of performing such tests could be extremely high. Therefore, without specific funding to perform such tests, TUCC is declining to proceed. The product concept appears to have more questionable aspects than resolvable ones at this point in time.

May 1982 Attachment 4

Cooperative Agreement with Majority Firms

(Participating Co.)

Subject: Participating Agreement

Dear

This letter will serve as the Participating Agreement between the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) and , in order to set forth our mutual understanding of each party's goals, commitments and responsibilities.

TUCC is a part of the National Technology Commercialization Program, dedicated to the process of bringing technology based products and services into the marketplace. Each center operates in the private sect but is partially funded with public monies. The progriM is an )J,Lt. arm of the Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency. Therefore, it is also trying to find a productive place in this developing process for minority inventors, minority entrepreneurs, minority industries, and technology related minority service businesses.

Becauie the program is carried out in the Minority Business Development Agency, it is required that minority firms be involved at some point in the plan. It can be the inventor, the manufacturer, or the company making the test, developing the marketing plan or building the prototype. It is essential that we have the firm's cooperation in this area as well as throughout all phases of our working relationship.

If the provisions of this Participating Agreement are acceptable, please so indicate as noted below and return one copy of this Agreement to the undersigned.

Sincerely, QUARTERLY REPORT Project A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

By Edwin A. Bethea, Project Director Project Advisory Team David S. Clifton, Jr. Ben E. James, Jr. Hans 0. Spauschus Hardy S. Taylor

Under Grant #98-10-80018-01

November 1982

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY A Unit of the University System of Georgia Engineering Experiment Station Atlanta, Georgia 30332 1982 Quarterly Report August, September, and October 1982 Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMKERCIALIZATION CENTER QUARTERLY REPORT

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist Project Director

Project Advisory Team

David S. Clifton, Jr. Senior Research Scientist Ben E. James, Jr. Senior Research Scientist Hans Spauschus Principal Research Scientist Hardy S. Taylor Senior Research Scientist

This material is the result of tax-supported research and as such is not copyrightbable. It may be freely reprinted with the customary crediting of the source.

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Engineering Experiment Station Economic Development Laboratory Atlanta, Georgia 30332

November 1982 Quarterly Report August, September, and October 1982 Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

WORK PERFORMED 3

Product/Venture Ideas 3 Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization

Product/Venture Ideas Receiving Engineering and Development Assistance

Evaluations Completed

Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation

Technical & Engineering Evaluations Performed for Other TCCs

Product/Venture Ideas Transferred to Other TCCs Terminated or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas 7 Resource Searches and Technology Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Entrepreneurs 7

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 8

TUCC Administrative Activities 8

Supportive Staff Activities 8

Advisory/Resource Council Activities 9

TUCC Participating Firms 9

TUCC Networking Activities 10 Page

PROGRAM ANALYSIS 11

ATTACHMENTS 12

A. TUCC Participating Firm Agreement B. Evaluation of Disposable Plastic Sweater C. Evaluation of Robotic Brake Shoe Production D. Evaluation of Time Accumulation System E. Solar Energy Heating & Cooling System F. Evaluation of Sky Scape G. Evaluation of Ball Joint Pulley/Gear Device H. Evaluation of Heating Response Indicator I. Evaluation of Toy Shoe House J. Evaluation of Kool Mist Evaporative Cooling System K. Evaluation of Hammer with a Slot L. Correspondence on Cable TV Hookups SUMMARY

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) appears to be moving toward implementing the full range of its objectives. It has established an effective system for evaluating the technical and engineering aspects of product/venture ideas submitted by TCCs or derived through TUCC's own outreach efforts. TUCC is now beginning to concentrate on developing a consistent, workable approach to finding profitable technologies that will have meaningful impact on the growth of minority-owned firms capable of acquiring and commercializing new technology. The process of developing an approach was begun before the end of the 1981-1982 grant year and will continue now that the grant has been extended. TUCC still is receiving a sizable number of referrals and requests for its evaluation services from other TCCs, the TCP headquarters and other MBDA-funded organizations. Work with our advisory group continues to go well; efforts are now also underway to expand the group's resource base and its involvement in the commercialization aspects of the program. INTRODUCTION

This report describes the work performed during this quarter (August, September, and October 1982) by the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. It is divided into three major categories: WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, and PROGRAM ANALYSIS. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER is described under three main topics: Product/Venture Ideas, Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas, and Resource Searches and Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs. Two of these main topics have subcategories. Product/Venture Ideas has six: Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized, Evaluations Completed, Product/Venture Ideas Receiving Development and Engineering Assistance, Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review, and Evaluations Performed for Other TCCs. Terminated or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas are subcategorized: Inactive Product/Venture Ideas. Resource Searches and Technology Identification for Minority-owned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs has no subcategories. The PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT section describes TUCC's administrative efforts, its plans, and various interrelated activities involving TUCC supportive staff, advisory council members, TUCC participants, and other TCCs. This section has six main topics: TUCC Administrative Activities, Supportive Staff Activities, Advisory Council Activities, TUCC Networking Activities, and TUCC Participating Firms Activities and Program Analysis. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) handled 33 product/venture ideas during this period. Nine of these are still active. Five new product/venture ideas were received during this quarter. TUCC performed six evaluations on product/venture ideas, submitted by other TCCs. The New England Technology Center referred two product/venture ideas; TEREC in California referred two; New CAST-TCC in Arizona referred one; and the Technology Commercialization Program headquarters referred one product/venture idea. TUCC has seven inactive product/venture ideas. The inactive status is reported because the owners or inventors of new technologies have indicated that activity on these projects will be resumed before the next quarter ends.

Product/Venture Ideas The following is a capsule description of the progress of work and results of services provided on behalf of product/venture ideas during this quarter.

Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization Kibbie Kapsule TUCC continues to assist the Kibbie Corporation with identifying additional markets. Plant Guardian -- Cheryl Products, the producer of the Plant Guardian, informed Sears that it would defer its offer to test market its product because the inventor wanted to place the product in the market by direct mail order. The inventor has agreed to pay for advertising costs in exchange for exclusive marketing rights. Quick Switch -- The scheduled meeting in August was postponed. However, the inventor and the President of Data Signal met in September and both agreed that they could work together. Negotiations are presently underway. A proposal is being developed by the inventor regarding his desires under the licensing agreement.

-3- Soundmate TUCC continued to work with the inventor of this product. However, at the present time work has been temporarily suspended until the inventor develops an effective plan for financing.

Product/Venture Ideas Receiving Engineering and Development Assistance Mat-Gard & Site-Gard -- Product site-testing was scheduled to begin on this new product during this quarter when TUCC completed its market study. The inventor, however, discontinued contact because his livelihood was affected by the recession and developmental work has been delayed. Safety Signal for Railway Crossings -- The inventor has notified TUCC that a test site has been identified. The Deleware-Hudson Railroad Company has informed the inventor that its facilities can be used. TUCC has informed the iventor that some circuitry modifications were necessary before any field test could be started. Flexstone TUCC supportive staff and representatives of the Alabama State Office of Minority Business Enterprise met with North American Panel to discuss the terms under which TUCC would be willing to help the firm overcome its quality control problems with the production of Flexstone. TUCC plans to submit a participating agreement to the firm stating how it plans to operate and what services it will perform (Attachment A). Business Card and Key Storage Device -- TUCC is working with the inventor to assist him with locating a company that will build a prototype. TUCC is also seeking to locate a minority manufacturer.

Evaluations Completed TUCC completed preliminary technical and engineering evaluations of twelve product/venture ideas submitted by inventors or minority-owned firms. They are: Electric Auto -- The technical and engineering evaluation of the Tricentennial Design Group's concept determined that the approach was not new and was technically unsound. The product as designed had no commercial potential. Plastic Sweater -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the inventors' concept had no commercial potential (Attachment B). Southeast Machine Shop -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the method and machinery (robotics) for manufacturing brake shoes was technically sound and feasible (Attachment C). Time Accumulation Accounting Device -- TUCC's evaluation determined that this product concept was technically sound and feasible. Its commercial potential, however, depended on market identification (Attachment D). Solar Energy Heating & Cooling System for Residential Use -- TUCC's evaluation determined that this product/venture idea has no commercial potential (Attachment E). Sky Scape TUCC's evaluation determined the concept has no commercial potential as presently designed (Attachment F). Ball Joint Pulley/Gear Device -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the product concept was technically sound; however, the product's commercial potential was very limited (Attachment G). Heating Method and Temperature Indicating Device -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the product concept was technically sound; however, the product's commercial potential appeared to be very limited. The product would be competing with other commercial devices already on the market, which perform approximately the same function at less cost (Attachment H). Toy Shoe House -- TUCC's evaluation determined this toy had very poor commercial potential (Attachment I). Kool Mist -- The technical and engineering evaluation of this cooling system for industrial buildings determined that technically the concept is sound; however, the commercial potential of the technique was very poor (Attachment J). Hammer with a Slot (for holding nails) -- TUCC's evaluation determined that this product was technically sound. Its commercial potential was dependent upon market size and cost to customer (Attachment K).

-5- Twigg County Cable Company -- TUCC's evaluation of this company's method of installing cable linkages in rural areas was unfeasible. TUCC did however suggest a less costly way of providing cable services to rural residents (Attachment L).

Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation Only three product/venture ideas remained in this category at the end of the quarter. Surgical Instrument (eye) -- This product is a single, multipurpose, disposable, surgical handpiece for removing unwanted material such as cataracts or contact lenses from the human eye. Flexstone -- Exposed aggregate, prefabricated exterior paneling material for use in building construction. Product samples were sent to the U.S. Army's Civil Engineering Research Laboratory for a second evaluation. Heat Generator -- A device for converting solar energy into kinetic energy.

Technical & Engineering Evaluations Performed for Other TCCs

Switch-Off (electronic current control device) - NEWCAST Plant Potting System - NEW TECH-TCC Solar Oxy-hydrogen Vehicle - NEW TECH Fuel Treating Apparatus - MBDA-TCP Hdqtrs. Secure Access Unit - TEREC Micro Tech Industries - TEREC Solar Bottle - TEREC

Product/Venture Ideas Transferred to Other TCCs Storm Window System Mid-Atlantic TCC Terminated or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas

Terminated Product/Venture Ideas Plastic Sweater Sky Scape Solar Energy, Heating Kool Mist and Cooling System for Building Toy Shoe House Twigg-County Cable Co. Power Line Modem Medley Tool & Model Co. Heating Method & Temperature Time Accumulation Indicating System Accounting System Coal to Gas Conversion Process

Inactive Product/Venture Ideas Delat Enterprise Collapsible Soft Drink Bottle Double Jalousie Direct Broadcasting System Fluidic Mud Pulser Hammer with Nail Slot

Resource Searches and Technology Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Entrepreneurs

Kibbie Corporation -- Requested additional assistance with market identification. Trianna Enterprises -- TUCC seeking assistance from Advisory Council member (Western Electric) on locating new markets. Zebra Corporation -- Researching possibilities of new technology acquisition. Advance Corporation -- Performing literature search on state of the art of new technology. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

TUCC Administrative Activities

TUCC received funding notification that the grant is extended for another year. The Director continues to prepare for the upcoming annual Advisory Council meeting. The date and place has been selected: November 5, 1982, at the Omni International Hotel. The TUCC Director also attended the quarterly TCC Directors' meeting held in Virginia Beach and participated in the post-awards briefing seminar. Introduction of the new technology commercialization center directors occurred and TUCC's director talked with all three center directors and their staff. The Director has also devoted considerable time to following up with the Rural Assistance Program proposal submitted to the Atlanta Regional MBDA office. In October, we were informed that the proposal had been awarded to Georgia Tech. The services rendered under the Rural Assistance Program will enhance TUCC's ability to serve clients, especially existing minority-owned manufacturing firms. The TUCC Director has also devoted time to exploring new alliances with agencies and private sector corporations that would enhance TUCC's pool of resources. Discussions were revived with the Tennessee Valley Authority, and it appears that the Authority is interested in participating. Additionally, an invitation was sent to the Vice President of the Westinghouse Corporation's Productivity Center asking him to participate in TUCC's program. No response to this request has been received as of this date.

Supportive Staff Activities

TUCC's supportive staff continues to be the key element in the program's operation. Cooperation among the technology evaluation group is working smoothly at the start of the new grant period, TUCC assigned sub-

-8- accounts to each laboratory that is evaluating product/venture ideas so that the center could have a better knowledge of the cost of services and the amount of time being devoted to this aspect of the program. Supportive staff activities with firms are also beginning to solidify. Supportive staff have travelled to four minority-owned firms to help TUCC determine clients' strengths and their ability to acquire new technology. A process for determining the soundness of our approach is being tested against results. It is anticipated that as the program year progresses, this system will mature and become a workable process for this center and other TCCs that wish to adopt TUCC's system or have TUCC perform such activities.

Advisory/Resource Council Activities

The TUCC Director has been working on a new plan to stimulate more involvement on the part of its Advisory Council. Present members provide assistance, but their involvement is not as deep as it could be. The lack of involvement by Advisory Council members in part reflects the fact that the Director has not mapped out specific roles for the members. Thus, the TUCC Director feels that he must chart a viable course for the Advisory Council that will inspire members to appropriate action.

TUCC Participating Firms

The TUCC Director and the center's supportive staff have been heavily involved in assisting participating firms. These efforts have been somewhat frustrating because progress has been minimal; however, the promise and potential outcome are very good. The staff's activity has centered on helping firms and entrepreneurs acquire and commercialize new technology. The center has been able to gain access to the firms, as well as to information about the technology; however, uniting the two so that a definite implementation plan can be developed that will lead to technology commercialization has been a problem. This problem has elements rooted in

-9- both the holders of the technology and the entities wishing to acquire and commercialize it.

TUCC Networking Activities

The relationship and communications between TUCC and the other TCCs continue to improve. The TCCs are beginning to use TUCC more, reflecting their growing awareness of the center as a resource. During this quarter, all except two TCCs requested TUCC's services. Telephone conversations took place between TUCC and all the other TCCs relating to product commercialization, services to clients, and general program concerns. The California center, TEREC, called to discuss problems the center was having with its regional auditors. The TUCC Director advised him to discuss the matter with a senior staff person at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, the group that handles contractual and auditing matters for TUCC. The TEREC Director was able to get the advice he needed to handle his problems with the auditors. To make other TCC directors aware of this kind of resource, TEREC's director elaborated on his experience during the directors' quarterly meeting. He explained that TUCC can help them in more ways than just providing direct services to the referred project as client. PROGRAM ANALYSIS

TUCC feels that the technical and engineering evaluation aspect of the center's role has been established. The center can provide sound evaluation results and meet established performance specifications. TUCC's focus this grant period will be to begin work on developing a systematic, workable approach to identifying and matching technology with minority-owned firms and entrepreneurs. It is anticipated that the center will utilize its advisory council to assist in this effort; thus, this effort will get major attention after the annual meeting. The TUCC Director also feels that this aspect of the program, when accomplished, will demonstrate further the benefits of having a center with this kind of resource as the focal point of the program. This does not imply that all centers should take this same form, but that the kind of resources that this center can call on make a valuable and necessary entity for supporting the objectives of the entire program. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A

TUCC Participating Firm Agreement Georgia Institute of Technology A UNIT OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332 IFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Telex 542507 GTRIOCAATL Fax (404) 894-3120 Phone (404) 894-

Subject: Participating Agreement Under A-3036

Dear

This letter will serve as the Participating Agreement between the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) and in order to set forth our mutual understanding of each party's goals, commitments and responsibilities.

TUCC is a part of the National Technology Commercialization Program, dedicated to the process of bringing technology based products and services into the marketplace. The program is partially sponsored by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency. Each center operates in a private sector mode, but public funds are utilized, therefore, competent and competitive minority-owned enterprises will be involved in the process of commercializing new technologies.

The objective of the Technology Commercialization Program is three- fold:(1) the delivery of more technology into the nation's economic development stream; (2) the improvement of national productivity through new technology; and (3) the identification and assessment of technologies that will enable minorities to participate in technology-based industries. TUCC hopes to accomplish this objective through your firm's participation in the program and with the cooperation of management.

The development plan, which has been formulated with your firm's management, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is hereby incorporated by reference into this agreement as TUCC's statement of work. Your firm's management staff and TUCC's, along with appropriate input as required for our Resource/Advisory group, must work together throughout this relationship in order to successfully implement the development plan. therefore, it is understood that the formulated plan may require changes due to circumstances related to product modification, its market, or TUCC's operation. Your firm will be consulted on all such changes and informed prior to their occurrence. Additionally, your firm will receive monthly activity reports and a final report upon completion of the development activities.

AN EQUAL EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION By your acknowledgement below you agree that all writings produced by TUCC under this agreement shall be the sole property of the Institute and we shall have the exclusive rights to copyright such writings. However, we agree to make our best efforts to grant a non-exclusive right to your firm to publish such writings when circumstances will permit.

The goals of TUCC and your firm can be accomplished through our cooperative efforts. It is understood that if at any time, in the judgment of TUCC, the necessary cooperation from your firm in carrying out any of TUCC's policies and goals is not forthcoming, this agreement may be terminated upon reasonable notice. TUCC, therefore requests that management pledges to inform TUCC of any activity that would alter the formulated plans, or conditions which would impact negatively on implementing our goals for your firm (commercializing technology). If the firm is not satisfied with the efforts of TUCC at any time, it has the option of seeking a resolution of the matter by bringing its grievance before the regional office or the National Technology Commercialization Office in Washington, D.C. Your firm can also terminate this agreement upon reasonable notice.

If the provision of this Participating Agreement are acceptable, please so indicate as noted below and return one copy of this Agreement to the undersigned.

Sincerely,

William T. Gerl

Dwight L. Allen OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

Receipt Acknowledged and Accepted

Title

Date Attachment B

Evaluation of Disposable Plastic Sweater ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Plastic Sweater (Disposable) Submitted by Mildred E. Taylor - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Emergency Disposable Plastic Sweater" was performed by staff of the Economic Development Laboratory's Industrial Extension Division, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the product/venture idea and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The evaluation determined that the proposed concept is not new, but an extension (variation) of an existing product concept. It is a sound idea; however, its chance for commercial succes as proposed appears very limited.

Evaluation Analysis

Evaluation of this product concept revealed several technical weaknesses. The cost of manufacturing the product will probably place it out of range for consumers' interest when retailed. The concept directs the product for only one use and there are several existing products that have multiple uses that could out compete this concept. Assuming use of a material like .004 vinyl (which is very light, typically used for scuff protection of items, dry cleaning bags, etc.) the vending machine price would probably be well over $1.00.

Further, for vending machines, a one-size-fits-all sweater would be needed, thereby making it difficult to manufacture to fit all sizes even if the material stretches. It is our opinion that when people travel and attend open air events, they are generally better prepared for adverse temperatures than for precipitation. Therefore, special advertising would be necessary at vending machines to explain that the product is not a raincoat or poncho (since it has no hood), but is rather only a "sweater." The public is not accustomed to purchasing vended plastic clothing that does not protect them from rain.

August 1982

AN EIUAL EFAoL 0'0%* NT EDuCA1 ■ON OPf ,06.1LJN.T v rNsi T• Lastly, TUCC feels that its question about market demand is another weakness of the product concept. TUCC could find no evidence of a demand for the product concept and if it exist it needs to be more clearly defined such as (kind of product, weight and size, how long does one wish it to last). The major need at this point in the development of the product is detailed market research in price and demand.

August 1982 Attachment C

Evaluation of Robotic Brake Shoe Production ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Robotic Brake Shoe Production Cantu Industries - Proposer

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of this proposed manufacturing process "Brake Shoes" by Cantu Industries was performed by staff of the Technology Applications Laboratory's Manufacturing Technology Center at the Engineering Experiment Station. This service was provided at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The following is a critique of Cantu Industries' proposed plan to use robotics in the manufacture of brake shoes as a manufacturing cost effectiveness method.

Evaluation Results

The review of the material submitted by TUCC's supportive staff indicates that the proposed brake shoe fabrication and assembly production facility appears to make appropriate use of robotic technology as the facility is presently envisioned. A discussion with the management of Cantu Industries indicates that the original facility plan, using a large number of robots, has been revised, and a system has been substituted that will use substantial hard automation tooling. The tooling will be fed by robots, which will reduce the capital investment needs. The latter approach is good for the production of large batches of standardized parts such as brake shoes.

The selection of a laser material processing system to drill holes in the brake shoe webs does not appear necessary, and only increases cost. The problems associated with a laser installation are: slow production performance, very high capital cost, difficulty of set-up, extremely high operating (energy) expenses, safety hazards, limited life expectancy, and expensive maintenance. It is our opinion that the use of lasers in your manufacturing plan does not appear to be offset by any particular

September 1982

AN E CU AL E MEAL C. r.AF t, F ...E.,/ I ,7t. benefits. TUCC suggests that you consider using a standard punch press operation, perhaps loaded by robots. This process may be more cost efficient. TUCC further suggests that maybe a more detailed study of the machining requirements involved is required before making the commitment to laser machining technology. _

September 1982 Attachment D

Evaluation of Time Accumulation System ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Preliminary Technical Evaluation of A Time Accumulation System for Client Record Keeping

Submitted by

Paul M. Hill, Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Time Accumulation System in Client Record Keeping" concept was performed by the Electronics and Computer Systems Laboratory staff at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The evaluation determined that Mr. Hill's concept appears to be sound, creative and innovative. It also appears technically feasible and there may well be a market for such a product.

Evaluation Analysis

Although the concept appears to be sound, and technically feasible, definatively this cannot be determined until considerably more development work is performed. The inventor did not include a drawing of the product concept, nor was cost information about components and parts provided.

Our conclusion regarding the concept's soundness is based on the fact that technology (off the shelf) exists that can be used in the construction of such a product. Further, we are aware of a possible need for such a device.

Additional work is required before a more definative statement can determine its real commercial potential. The work involves developing prototypes, testing financial and market evaluations and market studies before the commercial potential can be determined. August 1982

AN EQUAL El■Af.tOYMENT EOLCAT ,ON OPOOPTuNITv INSTITuTON ATTACHMENT E

Solar Energy Heating & Cooling System ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia r Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Solar Energy Heating & Cooling System Submitted by John Stilber - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the product/venture idea "Solar Energy Heating and Cooling System" was performed by staff of the Energy Materials and Science Laboratory's Solar Energy division, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of this patented system and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The technical and engineering evaluation determined that the system is a sound idea, but as presently described appears to have several problems that must be resolved or addressed before the product concept can be considered a feasible product. These problems exist in economic areas as well as technical and engineering areas. Therefore, it is our opinion that the product, as described by the literature submitted for evaluation, is not a commercially market ready product and has no commercial potential as described by the inventor.

Evaluation Analysis

The inventor did not provide cost of material estimates, therefore, no attempt was made to estimate the cost of construction; however, it appears that all of the hot and cool air paths must be tightly sealed during the construction with material that will last for the life of the structure. Any leakage across the structural boundaries of

August 1982

AN EQUAL E E,APL p. r.nE •JI E _Jr AT try., 0,3r3Dp INS1 the dwelling will rapidly diminish system efficiency. This fact coupled with the requirement for continuous ducting through ceilings, floors, and walls would be expected to increase construction costs to a point where the pay-back period on energy savings may well exceed the life of the structure. As always, a back-up heating system for periods of cloudy weather is recommended for human comfort as well as water pipe protection, etc.

Operation: Several problems are apparent in the system as described in the Patent document, both in the heating and cooling mode.

Heating Mode:

The apparent, but correctable, problem in the heating mode is the use of outside cold air as the heat transfer medium. By drawing in outside air, the system is forced to raise the air temperature through a much higher range than would be required if interior warm air were recirculated through the system (as is done in conventional heating systems). To attempt to heat winter air to a comfortable interior temperature will load the solar heating system down to a point where its usefulness is questionable. Again, any system leaks will introduce cool air into the ducts downstream of the heat source, and will rapidly diminish system performance.

The pitch of the roof should be adjusted to be compatible with the latitude of the dwelling, all other problems being solved. This angle is of course a compromise based on heating and cooling requirements.

The fan/fans must take suction from all of the ducts; therefore, they must be on a common manifold. An exhaust to the atmosphere must also be provided in order to prevent back pressure of the fan and resulting decreased flow. Also some system for equalizing flow in all ducts is needed.

Cooling Mode:

This mode presents the biggest problem in that warm, humid exterior air must be drawn into the dwelling in order to establish flow. Whether this air enters through cracks around doors, windows, etc. or through an opening expressly for this purpose, any cooling of this air will result in a humidity rise. Herein lies the problem.

August 1982 Warm air enters the cooling system at the below-grade level where it comes into contact with the cool lower ducts. As the temperature of this air drops, the humidity rapidly reaches 100% and condensation begins. Water droplets would be expected to form inside the fall and lower level floor ducts. Given the proper temperature difference and ambient humidity, water condensation inside the ducts will rapidly

become a major drainage problem. With time, mildew and perhaps other unpleasant organism will begin to thrive in the ideal culture growing environment inside the ducts (warm, moist, and dark). When the system is reversed during the next heating cycle, all of this corruption will be sucked out of the ducts and blown into the living area. In short, a method must be provided to prevent moisture buildup inside the ducts during cooling operations.

Other Considerations: Should the cooling-humidity problem be solved, very little if any storage capability can be expected in the sub-soil surrounding the dwelling lower story. Past experience indicates that it is possible to store some heat energy in sub- soil; however, when an attempt is made to recover the stored energy it is no longer there (due to dissipation into the surrounding soil). Also due to varying soil conductivity (depending on moisture content) it is difficult to extract large amounts of heat rapidly from air/masonry in contact with sub-soil.

The evaluation determined that there are several serious problems that must be addressed in the design of this system and they are:

1. Warming cold air from outside for heating 2. Duct sealing 3. Possible elimination of condensation in ducts 4. Inadequate storage capability 5. A back-up heating system 6. Construction expense 7. Temperature control 8. Fan suction manifold and flow equalization

The above problems rendered this product a very unlikely candidate for commercial success as presently designed.

August 1982 ATTACHMENT F

Evaluation of Sky Scape

..,_J-..:-.4 Georgia Institute of Technology ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Sky Scape Submitted by Robert F. Crump, Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the product "Sky Scape," an outside rescue elevator system for high-rise buildings, was performed by staffs of the Industrial Extension Division and the Center for Rehabilitation at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the product concept and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

TUCC's evaluation determined that the product/venture idea appears to be sound and technically feasible. The chances for the product being a success seem good; however, acceptance by the industry is essential. There appears to be a need for such a product, which should enhance its chances for success. In order to be more definitive about its commercial potential, a prototype is needed and an evaluation of its functional capabilities must be performed. Generally, TUCC feels that the product concept has potential and that further development should be undertaken.

Evaluation Analysis

Our evaluation concluded that the product concept is not new but that it may be unique enough to get the product patented. Success of the product would depend on industry acceptability, code official acceptability, and a desire by building developers to use the system in new and old construction. Thus, considerable promotional activity would be required to encourage interest.

This product concept is an extension of existing markets; however, our research did not reveal any known competition with similar products.

August 1982

AN EGuAL. EMPLOYMENT /EOUCAT ■ON OPPORTUNITY oNSTiTUTION Product specifications need to be drawn and a prototype developed for testing of the production's functional capabilities. Currently, in our opinion, there exists a great need for this type of device, and we think the product has good potential and that further development should be pursued.

August 1982 ATTACHMENT G

Evaluation of Ball Joint Pulley/Gear Device Georgia Institute of Technology ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Preliminary Technical Evaluation of A Ball Joint Pulley/Gear Device Submitted by George Mock -- Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Ball Joint Pulley/Gear Device" was performed by the Economic Development Laboratory's Industrial Extension Division staff , at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary The evaluation determined that the concept is sound both from a technical and engineering aspect. The concept, although not a new one, does address a misalignment situation with shafts and pulleys. A similar product is already on the market; Flexsteel Couplings is highly refined and uses only a universal joint. As a general product line for a small company, TUCC feels the device's chances for commercial success are poor. This opinion was reached because there appears to be no chance for finding volume application, it cannot be considered for use in standard application, and there is no chance of replacing presently used joints and couplings. Therefore, as a product/venture idea, its commercial potential appears somewhat poor.

Evaluation Analysis TUCC's opinion is that most machine designers would choose to avoid the situation of misaligned shafts in the intial phases of design; thus, there will be only a limited need for this product. The idea is sound and technically functional; however, a specific design will be required for each application. A further concern is that a

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION product of this nature will have only a short product life cycle because of fatigue and weakness. The flex cable will be the weakest part of the proposed joint. Further, there could be lubrication problems with the joint under heavy loads. This product concept can be produced and is useable, but it appears to be a specialty product with limited volume, thus, falling more into the custom product category, than into a standard product category. The product now on the market which most closely compares to the proposed product is "Flexsteel Couplings" by the Falk Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It uses similar principles but is highly refined and used only as a universal joint. New power transmission products used in front wheel drive automobiles solve the problem also. To get an idea of this, imagine replacing the pulley in the sketches with a front wheel and tire.

The flex cable will be the weakest part of the proposed joint. There could be a lubrication problem with the joint under heavy loads.

Success of this product is going to depend on finding a high volume application, and then specifically designing a cost effective joint using the idea. A general product line will have a poor chance of success because of limited standard applications and almost no chance of replacing a presently used joint or coupling in the replacement market.

July 1982 ATTACHMENT H

Evaluation of Heating Response Indicator ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia t Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Heating Response Indicator Inventor - Janar Corporation

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Heating Re- sponse Indicator Device" was performed by staff of the Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commer- cialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the product concept and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The evaluation determined that the product's basic concept is sound and practical. However, a great deal more development must occur before the product idea can be considered commercial. Additionally, a number of cooking ware manufacturers have in production similar devices. This product's usefulness in our opinion does not offer any advantage over those already in the marketplace, unless price is a factor. TUCC could not determine this, since the material submitted did not include labor and equipment costs, but only material cost. Thus the commercial potential can not be definitively determined.

Evaluation Analysis

The basic concept has some practical merit. A number of cooking ware manufacturers have in production similar devices to visually indicate when boiling takes place without lifting the cooking utensil lid. (See attached sketch.)

July 1982

AN EQUAL E NAPLCIYME N7 EDLICATiON nr,s,oca7 ,N 1v r,!7 (1) Cooking usually requires lifting the lid to stire food, therefore you can then determine when food is boiling. What is the value of your device if the above is required?

(2) The small hole size is susceptible to food clogging.

(3) Cooking ware manufacturers prefer to have no device "sticking up" on the lid.

(4) Visual pattern is not definitive enough for the general public to understand, as compared to a pop-up indicator. (See attached sketch.)

(5) Since the device is visual to indicate when to turn down the heat, the cooking person still must manually turn down the heat.

(6) Some automatic gas/electric control has been proposed, based on sensing when boiling takes place and cutting back the heat to the cooking utensil.

It is our suggestion that the following may be beneficial:

(1) Do a first order patent search at the University of Miami library or Georgia Tech's Inventor's Resource Center, (404) 894-4538, Mrs. Barbara Walker.

(2) Determine if a U.S. patent will be issued.

(3) Explore direct sales to do-it-yourself hardware distributors to see if anyone is interested.

(4) Contact major cooking ware manufacturers and attempt to see if they are interested in this product.

(5) Develop a workable prototype that can be demonstrated.

July 1982 ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Pfowco )01!(/6--u/Afe-7

0 1a1Y^ w4s.,42 1, : 2 ,i \IOU/ /141VW t/ 0,14 I a/r7-044 j-F4a--A fitdect,cs,,c h0c14; L;”--vh,tii „,);

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INISTTTUTION ATTACHMENT I

Evaluation of Toy Shoe House and Down Hill Ski Race ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Toy Shoe House & Down Hill Ski Race Submitted by William A. Green - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Toy Shoe House & Down Hill Ski Race" was performed by staff of the Economic Development Laboratory at the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC)• The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the concepts and their commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product concepts are technically sound. There also appears to be no engineering problems associated with manufacturing the products; however, neither product appears to have a "sexy" appeal to the industry. Discussions with toy manufacturer representatives indicate no great interest in either product. Thus, although the toys are sensible and can be manufactured without difficulty, it appears that they have a low commercial potential, because the toy industry is very high on video and movie replica toys at the moment.

Evaluation Analysis

TUCC's evaluation reveals that both products can be manufactured without difficulty. Since precision is not required to make these products, vacuum forming seems the most cost effective manufacturing method. Smaller parts may require injection molding. Accessories for the Down Hill Ski Race are easily acquired off the shelf. Changeable and moving parts also may be a deterrent to interest since one must

September 1982

f F F keep up with parts and require good assembly line control to make sure all parts are included in the toy's package. Another shortcoming of one toy, the "Shoe House" is that it could be dangerous for small children if the parts are swallowed. Regarding the "Down Hill Ski Race," most children in the age category for the toy have other toys competing for their interest; video games, other mechanical toys and games with more sophistication. Most manufacturers are now primarily interested in the computer toy - one that presents a challenge to the youngster and one that has a problem to solve. Thus, the market for the two toys does not appear promising.

September 1982 ATTACHMENT J

Evaluation of Kool Mist Evaporative Cooling System Georgia institute of Technology ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Kool Mist Roof Evaporative Cooling System Submitted by Kool Mist International - Inventors

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the product "Kool Mist Roof Evaporative Cooling System," a process for reducing energy cost, was performed by staff of the Energy Materials & Science Laboratory at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the product concept and its potential for commercial success and market penetration capabilities.

Evaluation Summary

TUCC's evaluation determined that the process is not a new concept. There are several similar products being offered by firms utilizing this method of decreasing building air condition loads (a/c). The product idea is sound; however, the product is seasonal in nature and its potential pay-back is based on cooling seasons. As a single product line for a new start-up company, the product appears to have poor commercial potential.

Evaluation Analysis

This technology is not novel and its potential in the market place is limited by competitive regional installers. Installers of water-sprinklers systems such as general contract plumbers and air condition contractors all offer similar products based on available material. The product is more often used for animal houses and shelters than for commercial, residential or industrial facilities (buildings) mainly because roofing insurance companies will not insure roofs on commercial and industrial buildings that use this process. The insurance companies are concerned about leakages and the roof's 'life span where evaporative systems are used.

August 1952

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPOPTuNITY INSTITUTION Should the company consider pursuing market penetration, it is suggested that a regional market strategy be formulated, concentrating on animal shelters or storage facilities, since in our research, animal shelters appear to be the most promising market areas.

Cost per square foot depends on the roof configuration, solar loading cycle, water spray distribution and modulations.

Mass marketing of this product will not be cost effective. A more appropriate approach seemingly is to get local exposure via potential contract/installers. The cost to get into the market is high, the cycle too close, get money invested out is long.

Solid-state controls will not add any more cost efficiency to the system.

August 1982 :,-.AOln...4./11/1 • 0001.:-.60. ' .....i•Joi.MaJe• , e.bab .41‘.601,W. ■60.h YAP ..06■COVIINI __-•-•••••■■••■

Environment for Animals and Plants 21.11 Table 3 Recommended Air Velocity through Various Pad Materials Air Face Velocity 6 through Pad• Type mis ft/s Aspen fiber mounted vertically 50-100 mm (2-4 in.) thick 0.75 2.5 0 DOUBLE COVEMAIG Aspen fiber mounted horizontally 50-100 mm (2-4 in.) thick 1.0 3.3 WIn • Corrugated cellulose,

I.J SINGLE COVER IND 100 mm (4 in.) thick 1.25 4.2 a \II Corrugated cellulose, • 3 150 mm (6 in.) thick 1.75 5.8

a 'Velocity may be increased by 25 67. where construction is limiting.

\ °C .. deg F/1.8 Table 4 Recommended Water Flow and Sump Capacity I for Vertically-Mounted Cooling Pad Materials Minimum Water Minimum Sump Rate per Lineal Capacity per Unit 1 Length of Pad Pad Area Pad Type and Thickness I /s/m gpm/ft 1/m2 gal/ft2 0 4 2 I 2 3 AIR CHANGE RATE. VOLUMES/MIN Aspen fiber 50 to 100 mm (2 to 4 in.) .06 0.3 20 0.5 Fig. 11 The Influence of Air-Exchange Rate on the Aspen fiber, Temperature Rise in Single-and-Double-Covered desert conditions Green houses 50 to 100 mm (2 to 4 in.) .08 0.4 20 0.5 Corrugated cellulose, The shading compounds most commonly used are forms of 100 mm (4 in.) .10 0.5 30 0.8 lime having varying durability. Ideally, the shading will wear Corrugated cellulose, away naturally during the summer months, leaving the glaz- 150 mm (6 in.) .16 0.8 40 1.0 ing clean by the beginning of fall when obtaining light be- co t 50% shading can be achieved. be continuous in the wall and the height adjusted to obtain the required total pad area. The pads should be capable of operating at an evaporative efficiency of 85 01o. Too tarn insi e temperatures lower than those outside the The mist-evaporative system, which consists of misting greenhouse, some form of cooling must be utilized. Mechan- nozzles located in the upper portion of the house, is also used ical cooling is expensive and seldom used in commercial struc- for greenhouse cooling. Air circulation must be such that air tures because of their large solar heat loads. To meet the de- flow occurs from the region where the mist nozzles are located sign requirements, the cooling load must be properly evalu- to the plant-growing area of the house. Since coarse droplets ated. In practice, values of 3,124 to 3,352 kJ/m 2 have been will fall out of the air before evaporating, fine water droplets used for solar heat gain on a horizontal surface. The solar must be formed. In general, this depends on high pressures of gain through vertical walls averages about 342 kJ/m 2 , with 1,378 and 3,445 kPa. Because of the wide variation in envi- the value being somewhat higher on south walls and lower on ronmental conditions, the amount of water required for satu- the others. In addition, there is a positive heat gain in cooled ration is highly variable. The high-pressure system does not structures from conduction caused by the difference between easily lend itself for correspondingly wide variation in water indoor and outdoor temperatures. In a glass greenhouse output. Therefore, if the system is adequate for extreme con- where a 22.2°C temperature difference is maintained, this ditions, excess water is generally misted during less critical pe- would amount to 513 kJ/m 2 of exposed surface area. riods and crop wetting occurs. Similarly, if lesser amounts of If the greenhouse floor is wet and the benches filled with water are used, the degree of cooling which can be achieved large-leaved plants, approximately half of the solar radiation during the hottest periods is less than desired. In spite of these load is used to evaporate water and represents a latent heat disadvantages, misting systems have considerable potential load. The percentage of the latent heat load which must be for cooling greenhouses. removed by the cooling system will depend on the air- exchange rate. Humidity Control To cool commercial greenhouses economically, some form The maintenance of sufficient relative humidity in the day- of evaporative cooling—either pads, unit coolers, or mist time and its dissipation at night can become problems in cooling—is used. In addition to cooling, these systems add greenhouse crop production. If the relative humidity is kept moisture to the air which reduces the potential for plant mois- high in the daytime, water loss by transpiration is reduced. ture stress. • Misting is an effective means of increasing humidity in the Pad cooling is the most popular cooling system. The pads daytime. A typical misting arrangement consists of mist are generally placed in an end wall or side wall opposite ex- nozzles attached to pipe at about a metre apart. The pipe is lo- haust fans which draw outdoor air through them. One m 2 of cated about 0.5 metres above the plants. The mist can be con- pad area is recommended for each 70 //s of air-flow capacity tinuous or timed to operate for 5 to 10 s every S min. of the ventilation fans. Table 3 shows air-flow rates. The Reducing relative humidity is necessary since disease organ- water-flow rate should be approximately 0.06 to .16 Vs per isms flourish at above 85 or 90°7s humidity. As temperature m of pad (see Table 4). To assure uniformity, the pads should drops, the relative humidity increases and, with transpiration finishing house in which 0.74 m 2 per animal are allowed, when the wet-bulb depression is less than I1°C. Nozzles are usually adjusted to spray approximately 31 I of water per hour at 276-kPa pressure. Three types of evaporative coolers are used in agriculture: 1. cabinet or package units; 2. the so-called pad-and-fan system; and 3. ventilation fans with fogging nozzles. The lat- iporative-tooling-offer - ter are usually considered for emergency protection rather economiral possibly the most practical means of than routine daily operation because there is a certain amount cooling his buildings, since the outdoor air can be reduced to of droplet-carry which may result in excessive addition of 30°C or lower in most sections of the country regardless of moisture to litter or bedding, in turn resulting in ammonia dimatic conditions. This type of cooling is ideally suited to production and high humidity. farm animal shelters because all outdoor air is used and there- The design, whether using the cabinet or the pad-and-fan fore tight construction is not required. The fresh air also re- system, proceeds along rational lines. Outdoor air is cooled by moves odors and reduces harmful effects of ammonia fumes exchanging its sensible heat for the latent heat or vaporization from urine and excrement. Original cost, operating expense, of water. Air can be so cooled to within about 1.1°C of the and maintenance problems are all relatively low. Evaporative wet-bulb temperature. This air is then moved through the cooling works best in areas of low relative humidity, but bene- house where it absorbs the heat load by increasing in tempera- fits have been reported throughout the country. ture. Poultry houses are generally designed so that the tem- Evaporative cooling has become very popular in poultry perature rise of the air is 2.8 or 3.3 °C (the air exhausting 3.9 houses where photoperiodism (length of daylight) is prac- or 4.4°C above the wet-bulb temperature). If the total heat ticed. An added requirement for this use is installation of load is known, the quantity of air necessary to continuously lighttight air inlet and exhaust openings. Swine houses have remove it with an evaporative cooler can be estimated quickly, been evaporatively cooled. Researchers indicate potential since 28 1 of air rising 2.8°C will absorb about 0.09 kJ. Cool- benefits for dairy cows in terms of both production and ing capacity is generally expressed in Ifs, and should be based reproduction. on operating against 0.42 kPa static pressure. Fogging systems or misting systems are used extensively Another sizing procedure often used is the air change during hot weather for confinement swine production facil- method. Evaporative cooling systems designed using this ities with solid concrete or slotted floors. The highest pressure method should be sized to change the air within the shelter in and smallest orifice diameter consistent with the equipment 90 to 120 s, assuming the ceiling height does not exceed 3 m. design and economy of operation should be used. Nozzles This is conservative and will keep the shelter at 29.4°C or with a wide cone angle directed to spray downward at an air lower. In a typical milking parlor for a herd of 50 dairy cows, velocity under 1.2 m/s appear to give optimum performance. a packaged air cooler might be sized to deliver 1.421/s which The ventilation rate should be 60 air changes per h for a swine will replace the air in the milking parlor every 90 s. In a conventional stall barn, the cooling system could be sized for a 90 s air change in the milking parlor section of the barn and a 90 to 120 s air change in the stalls and stockpen area depending on ceiling height. Exhaust openings should total at least three times the size of the discharge opening of the cooler. The usual design considerations for evaporative coolers hold for agricultural applications. These are: I. Air velocity through the pad area should be limited to 0.76 m/s. 2. Air velocity: in sheet metal ducts, 5 m/s maximum; in louvers and ports, 2.54 m/s maximum; and within the house proper, 0.23 to 0.76 Ws. 3. Recirculation of water to pads at the rate of 0.061/s, 4721/s. 4. Brine drain or bleed off at rate of I mf/s, 472 1/s. The most serious problem with evaporative coolers for agricultural applications has been clogging caused by dust and other airborne particles. Nonrecirculating systems reduce this problem. Ventilation. Since air is used as a transport medium in most environmental control systems, the evaluation of a structure's ventilation depends on its purpose. In mechanical refrigeration and evaporative cooling systems, distribution of air to provide a uniform temperature pattern is desired. In ventilation systems, uniform air movement at animal height to transport heat and moisture is sought. In general, the following conditions should be created: 1. Dry floors, dry liner, or both. 2. Uniform temperature at all animal locations. 3. A minimum of rapid changes and wide fluctuation in the environmental temperature. 4. Prevention of spurious movement of air (which is colder than the casting environment) from passing over the animal. ATTACHMENT K

Evaluation of Hammer with a Slot ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Nail Holding Hammer Submitted by John B. Frykman and Lewis Johnson, Promoters

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the product "The Nail Holding Hammer" was performed by staff of the Economic Development Laboratory's Industrial Extension Division, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the product concept and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The preliminary evaluation determined that the product concept is sound from a technical and engineering standpoint. The product will require additional research and evaluation in the areas of marketing and product design specification. The concept appears to have commercial potential; however, its chances of success is average and limited to the demand that can be created, customer appeal and industry acceptance is extremely important. Evaluation Analysis

The product concept is not new; it is however technically sound and its engineering appears good. Thus the product will not be difficult to design or manufacture and can be made from readily available raw materials. There is, however, a need for additional engineering refinement before the product can be considered a commercially ready product. Consideration should be given to the following engineering design concerns: o How well will the spring/ball mechanism function in the typical airy environment of construction?

September 1982

AN EO JAL EMPL C.A( r Dur Al o Can the spring/ball mechanism hold the required range of nail sizes?

o Can the average person strike a location with the hammer accurately enough to place a nail in the correct location and exert adequate force to seat the nail in the process?

Our other concerns are related to the market. To whom is this product aimed, the commercial (consumers) or the industrial market (carpenters, etc.)? In both markets we feel there is a need to consider product liability. This is especially of concern when dealing in the consumer market.

In the industrial area our concern relates to market penetration, since the woodwork and metal industry is a very old-fashioned and stubborn industry when it comes to trying new things. Further, their resistance to new products by unknown entities is also very strong.

Thus, TUCC is of the opinion that the product has commercial potential; however, its chance for success is only average, since we can determine no great market demand for the product. Further a great deal of marketing effort will be required to penetrate the commercial and industrial markets.

September 1982 ATTACHMENT L

Correspondence on Cable TV Hookups ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

August 20, 1982

Mr. Harry Randall P.O. Box 174 Twiggs County Cable 17.440,47 Macon, Georgia

Jeift'"11KDear Mr. Randall:

Mr. Free has completed working on the information you requested. He contacted Mr. Lex Felker of the Office of Plans and Policy/FCC regarding your distribution problem. Mr. Felker indicated that microwave links are used extensively in cable television distribution and channels are allocated in the 12.7 to 13.2 GHz frequency range. Enclosed is the copy of FCC's rules and regulations regarding cable television relay service that was forwarded to us.

The discussion with Mr. Felker, indicated that he did not have information regarding the relative cost of a microwave link compared to the cost of a coaxial cable and neither does Georgia Tech. However, we are recommending that you contact Mr. Clifford Paul, Chief, Microwave Branch, Cable Television Bureau FCC, 202/254-9420, it is our understanding he may have information regarding the above as well as more detailed information on the operation of microwave television distribution links.

Several addresses of companies who may be contacted for information regarding equipment as well as material describing a very modern cable television system in detail is also enclosed. Possible contacts are:

General Information on Operation of Microwave Links

Mr. Clifford Paul, Chief Microwave Branch, Cable TV Bureau FCC Washington, D.C. 20554 (202) 254-3420

AN EGI,A6 F MPL OvME'.:TE CJ -11. A TON or ,ur.n , or,./ 'NS t I Mr. Harry Randall August 20, 1982 Page 2

Antennas and Transmission Lines

Andrew Corp. Prodelin, Inc. 10500 W. 153rd St. Box 131 Orland Park, IL 60462 Hightown, NJ 08520

(312) 349-3300 (609) 448 - 2800

Relay Equipment

GTE Products Corp. MACOM Industries CATV Division 1508 Cotner 10841 Pellicano Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90025 El Paso, TX 79935 (213) 473-8484 (800) 351-2345

Harris Corp. Farinon Division 1691 Bayport Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070 (415) 592-4120

We trust that the enclosed material will be helpful.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. All correspondence should be addressed to Mr. Edwin A. Bethea. I can be reached directly by telephone (404) 894-3858 or 3833.

Sincerely,

Aurelia L. Johnson Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center

ALJ:wc Enclosures QUARTERLY REP RT November, Decemb r 1982, January 1983 PROJECT NO. A-3 36-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIAL ZATION CENTER

By Edwin A. Bethea, Pro ect Director

Project Advisory Team David S. Clifton, Jr. Hans Spauschus Hardy S. Taylor

Under Contract No. 98-10-8018-01

January 1983

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY A Unit of the University System of Georgia Engineering Experiment Station Atlanta, Georgia 30332 1983 Quarterly Report November, December 1982, January 1983 Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER QUARTERLY REPORT

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist Project Director

Project Advisory Team

David S. Clifton, Jr. Senior Research Scientist Hans Spauschus Principal Research Scientist Hardy S. Taylor Senior Research Scientist

This report was accomplished with financial assistance from the Minority Business Development Agency, U. S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations and other data in this report are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Department of Commerce. This material is the result of tax-supported research and as such is not copyrightbable. It may be freely reprinted with the customary crediting of the source.

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Engineering Experiment Station Economic Development Laboratory Atlanta, Georgia 30332

January 1983 Quarterly Report November, December 1982, January 1983 Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

WORK PERFORMED 3

Product/Venture Ideas 3 Terminated or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas 5

Resource Searches and Technology Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Entrepreneurs 5

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 7

TUCC Administrative Activities 7

Supportive Staff Activities 7 Resource/Advisory Council Activities 8

TUCC Participating Firms 8

TUCC Networking Activities 9

PROGRAM ANALYSIS 10 ATTACHMENTS 1 1 A. Evaluation of Heat Generator B. Evaluation of Flexstone C. Evaluation of Spill Aid SUFINARY

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center handled a total of 30 projects during this quarter. Interaction with other TCCs and the performance of technical and engineering evaluations for other centers continue to increase. Since its funding has been renewed, TUCC plans to concentrate on developing a more cooperative approach to assisting minority-owned firms with identifying new technology from the private and government sectors. This will eventually mean more involvement by TUCC's Resource/Advisory Council members. Hopefully, this will enable the center to get more products commercialized and to assist more minority firms in acquiring new product lines that will get into the marketplace. INTRODUCTION

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) handled 30 product/venture ideas during this period. Five of these projects were new; three were requests from other TCCs requesting technical and engineering evaulations, one was referred from the Montgomery Business Development Center, and one resulted from TUCC's outreach efforts. Evaluations were completed on seven product/venture ideas, and seven other product/venture ideas or work with minority-owned firms were either closed or teminated. Three minority-owned firms are being assisted with technology identification and development, and engineering services are being performed on one product/venture idea. Two product/venture ideas remain at the near commercialization stage, and TUCC continues to work with the inventors of two commercialized products. Five product/venture ideas are undergoing technical and engineering evaluation.

Product/Venture Ideas

The following is a categorization of the product/venture ideas and minority-owned firms assisted during this quarter.

Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization Kibbie Kapsule TUCC continues to assist the Kibbie Corporation with locating new markets. This quarter TUCC talked with Southern Railway System's Research Department, which agreed to review a modified version of the Kapsule that may be able to be adapted for use on railroad tanker cars. Quick Switch -- The efforts to link this inventor with a minority manufacturer in Massachusetts failed to develop into a viable agreement. The minority manufacturer has not been responsive to our overtures, though earlier he had expressed a great deal of interest in producing the product.

-3- Soundmate Soundmate and TUCC are working to identify investment capital to complete the final prototype that will be evaluated by one of TUCC's Resource/Advisory Council members.

Evaluations Completed Direct Broadcasting Systems -- Advance Corporation, the company that is developing this system, provided TUCC with a proposed approach to building satellite antennas for DBS. TUCC's evaluation determined that their approach was feasible and valid. Heat Generator -- TUCC's evaluation determined that this product/venture idea had no commercial potential (Attachment A). Flexstone This product, developed by North American Panel was submitted to the Army Civil Engineering Research Laboratory for a second evaluation. The federal lab's evaluation determined that the product was sound and its claims appeared valid (Attachment B). An Electric Powered Jump Rope -- This product/venture idea was determined valid but probably impractical and unsafe for its proposed use. Spill Aid -- This product/venture idea, an accessory for preventing spills from paint cans, was determined to be technically sound and appears to have some commercial potential, but additional development is needed (Attachment C). Personal/Classified Document Protector -- This device, a means of destroying sensitive and classified documents, was found to be a technically sound idea. However, the evaluation determined that the true test of its workability could only be determined when a prototype was built and tested. Solar Bottle-- A product/venture idea for using solar energy to heat and warm liquids and solids in a bottle. TUCC determined the product had commercial potential. Evaluation requested by TEREC. Wave Length Calibrator -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the idea was sound, but was not the state-of-the-art in this area. This product concept had no commercial potential as presently designed. Evaluation requested by TEREC.

-4- Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation Roofing Shingles -- A proposed concept for fabricating roofing shingles into rolls that would be suitable for use by do-it-yourselfers. Portable Colostomy Kit -- A device used by paraplegics for disposing human waste. Portable Answering Device -- Evaluation regulated by the Arizona State University TCC. Technical and engineering evaluation in progress. Multi-Bag Dispenser -- Evaluation requested by Arizona State University TCC. Fluid Flow Device -- Evaluation requested by Arizona State TCC.

Terminated or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas

Terminated Product/Venture Ideas Double Jalousie Robotics (Canter Industries) Collapsing Bottle Zebra Corporation Hammer with a Slot Direct Broadcasting Electrical Powered Jumping Rope Fluidic Mud Pulser

Inactive Product/Venture Ideas Surgical Instrument Business Card/Key Device

Resource Searches and Technology Identifications for Minority Firms and Entrepreneurs

Trianna Industries -- Work regarding finding new product lines is still being pursued. Delta Enterprises -- TVA and TUCC plans to meet with Delta Enterprise to work on new product development. Peel Technical Services -- TUCC supportive staff met with owner of firm to discuss how TUCC's resources could be used to assist him with product/technology identification and improve his production process.

- 5 - Data Signal Corporation -- This minority-owned company expressed a desire to manufacture the product "Quick Switch." Quick Switch, a computer peripheral device, was invented by a TUCC client. TUCC has worked with both the inventor and the minority manufacturer to get commercialization activities started. Presently, there appears to be a lessening of interest in producing the product, judging from the manufacturer's actions. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

TUCC Administrative Activities

The administrative aspect of TUCC is going relatively well, considering all the changes brought about by newly established policies and directions from the sponsoring agency. In November, the TCC directors were informed that the program responsibility for the Technology Commercialization Program would be transferred to the region. Monitoring would be performed by a regional staff person. Details regarding lines of authority and responsibilities are unclear and have not been totally resolved as of this reporting date. The TUCC Director and other MBDA-funded programs were required to attend the MBDA National Conference in Washington. I feel that it was useful since it provided an opportunity to meet various MBDA grantees, some of whom may be able to work with TUCC. Some confusion persists about MBDA's approach. However, the TUCC Director and the Regional Program Monitor have worked out a policy that has not interfered with program activities; therefore, TUCC continues to provide good services to its clients.

Supportive Staff Activities

The TUCC supportive staff involved in evaluating product/venture ideas are performing superbly. They have consistently been able to evaluate product/venture ideas and return reports within the established time (30 days) for completing preliminary technical and engineering evaluations. Work with minority firms has been at a near standstill because of the preparation required for the Annual Advisory Council Meeting held on November 5, 1982, and the time off due to Christmas holidays. Despite this interference, progress is being made toward establishing a plan for identifying minority-owned firms that will be able to participate in an

-7- accelerated effort to involve the TUCC Resource/Advisory Council in the search for and commercialization of new products/technologies.

Resource/Advisory Council Activities

TUCC's Annual Resource/Advisory Council Meeting was held November 5, 1982. This year's program discussion focused on ways of positioning TUCC as a unique organization that assists MBEs acquiring new products and penetrating technology-based industries. The members decided that our usual once-a-year meeting was not enough to get things moving and asked the director to work on setting a policy for meeting at least twice a year. Approximately twenty-five members attended this year's meeting. Two new firms, the Westinghouse Electric Co. and Mead Packing Corporation, and two quasi-government agencies, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory joined the Resource/Advisory Council. Additionally, this was the first year TUCC invited minority firms to participate in the Advisory Council Meeting. TUCC now feels that these firms should become active members of the Resource/Advisory Council. This year's meeting concluded with the members challenging the Director to devise an approach to getting them more involved with TUCC's participating firms. This was viewed as a way of demonstrating the effectiveness of the public-private sector relationship.

TUCC Participating Firms

The TUCC Director devoted some time this quarter to talking with minority-owned firms to obtain information about how best to get matchable technology into their hands and then assist them with commercialization efforts. The results of the survey revealed that TUCC must become more involved with helping the firms develop a scenario for acquiring resources as well as technologies. It also must become involved in helping the firms become more astute and knowledgeable about identifying business opportunities. Further, TUCC must help the firms develop an objective realistic business plan for growth and expansion (this includes considering

-8- the need for new machinery and personnel). Work with new and existing participating client firms will encompass a plan to accomplish these objectives.

TUCC Networking Activities

This quarter TUCC has worked more closely with other centers in the network than in previous quarters. The center that utilized our services most frequently was the Arizona State-TCC, followed closely by TEREC. Some requests for evaluations have also been obtained from other TCCs, such as Middle Atlantic and Hartford. Most notable, however, is the interchange of ideas and discussions that have evolved regarding TCC's direction. The newer centers have, on occasion, called about forms and other matters; however, it appears that they will fit into the network very well when they become established in their own environment. PROGRAM ANALYSIS

This year's program plan for TUCC focuses on developing a strong relationship with minority firms in an effort to assure them that we can assist them with identifying and acquiring new technologies and products. It appears that our evaluation process is well established and is operating smoothly. However, to test this process, TUCC plans to develop a survey for its past clients and the TCCs to determine the program's effectiveness and whether we are providing satisfactory results. Overall, the TUCC Director is pleased with the Center's progress at this reporting period. TUCC has begun to structure a program plan to discuss at the Annual Resource/Advisory Council Meeting that addresses increased involvement on the part of Resource/Advisory Council members. TUCC has contacted several resource members to discuss how best TUCC can get them involved; most members welcomed the opportunity to express their views on this question. The policy changes instituted at the National level by MBDA appear to be beneficial to TUCC. The Center's transfer to the region appears to be working well. TUCC has been in contact with its regional monitor and is receiving very good cooperation and programmatic assistance in fostering development of resources and contacts. Further, the TUCC Monitor has been instrumental in providing the TUCC Director with contacts to other MBDA- funded programs that might need our assistance or whose business development efforts complement our own. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A

Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Heat Generator

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332 TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Preliminary Technical Evaluation of

HEAT GENERATOR Submitted to TUCC by Carl E. Brazell, Jr.

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Heat Generator was performed by staff of the Energy and Materials Science Laboratory at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the product and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary The technical and engineering evaluation determined that the concept for converting waste heat into energy is technically an interesting concept. However, it is our opinion, based on the information submitted, that the potential for developing this concept into a successful commercial product, as a source of generating electricity, is extremely small. The overall energy efficiency of the concept cannot be determined from the information submitted. Further, in order to properly evaluate the feasibility of the concept, a working model or an extensive mathematical thermodynamics model should be developed whereby various working fluids as a potential source for moving the "free piston" could be evaluated.

Evaluation Analysis Converting waste heat into energy at a competitive cost is extremely dependent on the thermodynamic cycle and the source/temperature of the waste heat. S

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 'EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION Various cycles have been modeled and a number of experimental units built that indicated moderate success. The attached documents reflect some of the concepts that have been tried.

Generating electricity from a linear motion is not as efficient when compared to a turbine-generator concept (rotary motion for 60 Hz output). Component sizing must be determined in order to support the concept of an a/c sized unit to produce electricity (magnitude of the Kw output). Utilizing a refrigerant as a working fluid has been proposed and a number of patents obtained (see attached documents). In order to extract the maximum output of a fluid to produce mechanical work the fluid generally is heated into the vapor state and expands down to a lower temperature and corresponding pressure. The use of a free-piston to convert fluid pressure into work is similar to a hydraulic double acting piston and hence corresponds to state of the art technology. The use of a "venturi" to act as a pump has been a standard in the industry; with steam and water, hence the use with "freon" may not be novel "in the patent sense" as a definitive technological to support a patent position. Any fluid utilized in conjunction with the "free piston" or any mechanical system must be capable of operation at high thermodynamic efficiency and be cost effective to support a reasonable pay back period. In order to T generate electricity at a magnitude large enough to take advantage of economy to scale especially where waste heat is being recaptured, the invention must be capable of "mechanical-scaling" to comparable systems in the industry generating the waste heat.

Converting the concept into a practical/cost-effective system appears to be doubtful. The components illustrated in the document do not convey the expected equipment sizing in order to support that the overall system is in 'Thermodynamic equilibrium." A number of "fluid state points" are specified in isolation; for proper selection the state points are derived from the fluid properties to support the expected thermodynamic cycle and is related to the required mechanical output or electric generation.

The conversion of the motion of the free piston into electricity as a single design requirement will require details far in excess of the stated drawing. An electronic solenoid operates on the principle that current on an outer coil produces a flux field which in turn drives the solenoid "piston/head" forward, by reversing the flux, the "piston" can move in either direction. In reversing this effect (as per the invention) the geometry of the outer coil, the current density (current/cross section of the current carrying conductors), the packing density must be in the proper scaling/relationship in order for efficient electric production. Without an in-depth analysis it is not possible to technically comment on this part of the invention.

The overall complexity of the proposes system and the limited supportive anslysis makes it extremely difficult to properly evaluate the expected operational parameters.

RECOMMENDATION(S)

(1) The inventor plot on the attached refrigerant characteristic chart (R22) the expected operating cycle and determine the overall thermodynamic efficiency.

(2) The inventor complete a more detailed analysis of the components in order to determine the mechanical work output as a function of waste heat input.

(3) The inventor determine the sizing of the equipment as a function of the electric output in order to determine system costs and hence expected pay-back with corresponding assumptions related to economy to scale projections.

(4) A working model of the major components be tested as a system in order to determine the compatibility and output of the overall concept. Attachment B

Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Flexstone by TUCC Resource/Advisory Member U.S. Department of the Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 4005 CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61820

January 14, 1983

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: Special Assistant

Mr. Edwin A. Bethea Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Engineering Experiment Station Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Dear Mr. Bethea:

The test data on FLEXSTONE which you sent with your letter of 30 Sep 82, and the sample pieces of the product (which arrived somewhat later) have been examined. Subjective evaluations of the material were performed since the test data from commercial laboratories seemed credible. Impact resistance, flexibility and ease of ignition were specifically examined. Results of the examinations showed the producer's claims to be apparently realistic.

The US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) does not test and evaluate proprietary materials except when specifically requested and funded by the Chief of Engineers Office in Washington, DC. This service was provided as part of our Technology Transfer Program through the Federal Laboratory Consortium. CERL also conducts a Small Problems Program. Under this program, Government agencies outside the Army must pay for services other than advice or information provided over the telephone.

The US Army Corps of Engineers does not test materials for the purpose of forming a qualified products list. Generally, proprietary products such as FLEXSTONE are included in a design by an Architectural and Engineering firm employed by the Corps, or by a Corps designer, and are approved for use if the product meets the requirements of a Corps of Engineers Guide Specification (LEGS) that is pertinent to the application. We do not establish a procurement list for specific products like FLEXSTONE. -2-

Two specifications may cover the FLEXSTONE product; the first is "Guide Specification for Military Family Housing - Exterior Millwork, Siding and Trim" OCE GSH 6.2a (also DOD 4270.21-SEPC) especially paragraph 5, Materials. The second specification is "Exterior Wall Insulation and Finish System", CEGS-07240 (still in draft form) in which, combined with appropriate insulation board and attached to a structure (stated as one option in the company's Engineering Bulletin dated 5-29-80) FLEXSTONE may be useful as the finish.

Corps of Engineers Guide Specifications are prepared and revised by the US Army Engineer Division, Huntsville, P.O. Box 1600, ATTN: HNDED-CS, Huntsville, AL 35807. It is recommended that you communicate with Mr. John Hall. Additionally, a contact in the Chief of Engineers Office is Mr. Tom Payne at HQ USACE, ATTN: DAEN-ECE-A/Mr. Tom Payne, Washington, DC 20314. He may be able to suggest procedures by which the company can assure itself that designers for the Corps are aware of the FLEXSTONE system.

I trust that our service has been helpful. If you have further questions, please call (217) 373-7206.

Sincerely,

G. R. Williamson Office of Research Technology Application

Copy Furnished: DAEN-ECE-A HNDED-CS CERL-ZG Attachment C

Technical and Engineering Evaluation. of Spill Aid ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Pouring Accessory (Spill-Aid) Submitted by Marshall E. Roberts-Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the product "Spill-Aid," a pouring accessory, was performed by staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of this product and its commercial potential.

Evaluation Summary

The evaluation staff determined that the product idea is technically sound. It is a new concept, has good design features and appears to have good commercial potential. The technical and engineering evaluators agree with comments in the "Factual Data" section of the material submitted regarding the product's excellent commercial potential as a promotional advertising product.

The product in our opinion, however, is not well suited for the direct consumer market initially but would perform better if it were sold as a package with paint in the retail and wholesale market.

Evaluation Analysis

The TUCC evaluation determined that the product appears to be new to the marketplace and is an innovation and extention of an existing market, the paint industry. No information is known about product competition; however, this is an area that needs exploring since knowledge of similar or related products, if any, can help determine the manufacturing and retail cost. Such information will also help the inventor select the best type of manufacturing material and give some idea of cost.

There should be no problem with finding an adequate supply of raw material once the type is selected (metal, plastic, aluminum, etc.). Neither does there appear to be any development problems associated with building prototypes and manufacturing the product.

January 1983

AN EQUAL EMPL Y ME NT E DUCATION OPPODTuNITY INSTITUTION Although the product appears to be easy to produce and seems structurally sound, manufacturing specification must be drawn before production of the product begins. There appears to be no government approvals required to manufacture the product; however, safety factors regarding the attachment and handling of the product should be considered in its design.

A working prototype should be developed and evaluated before production. Engineering drawings must be made of the final design, but no specialized manufacturing equipment of tooling is required. Manufacturing equipment can be used to produce this product.

Additional research is needed to pin-point the demand for the product as a marketing aid for the point industry, commercial, retail as well as industrial.

January 198 3 . •711017 •

QUARTERLY REPORT Project A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

By Edwin A. Bethea, Project Director

Project Advisory Team Fred Cain Davis S. Clifton, Jr. Hans 0. Spauschus Hardy S. Taylor

Under Grant #98-10-80018-01

November 1983

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY A Unit of the University System of Georgia Engineering Experiment Station Atlanta, Georgia 30332 1983 Quarterly Report July, August, and September 1983 Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER QUARTERLY REPORT

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist Project Director

Staff Advisory Team

Fred L. Cain Director Electronics and Computer

. Systems Laboratory

David S. Clifton, Jr. Director Economic Development Laboratory

Hans Spauschus Director Energy & Materials Science Laboratory

Hardy S. Taylor Associate Director Economic Development Laboratory

This material is the result of tax-supported research and as such is not copyrightbable. It may be freely reprinted with the customary crediting of the source.

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Engineering Experiment Station Economic Development Laboratory Atlanta, Georgia 30332

November 1983 Quarterly Report July, August, and September 1983 Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

WORK PERFORMED 3

Product/Venture Ideas 3 Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization

Evaluations Completed 4

Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Further Exploration 5

Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review & Evaluation 6

Resource Searches and Technology Identification for Minority Firms and Entrepreneurs 6

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 8

TUCC Administrative Activities 8

Supportive Staff Activities 9 Resource/Advisory Council Activities 10

TUCC Participating Firms 10

TUCC Networking Activities 11

PROGRAM ANALYSIS 12 ATTACHMENTS 13 A. Projects Handled by TUCC During This Quarter 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Page

B. Cover Letter & Technical Proposal To Defense Small Business Innovation Research Program FY 1983 Submitted by Kibbie Corporation and Engineering Experiment Station 17

C. Letter of Interest from Advance Systems Concepts, Inc. 18

D. Cover Letter and Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Cleaning Attachment For Use On Lawn mowers 19

E. Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical & Engineering Evaluation of Spring and Valve Skirt 20

F. Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical & Engineering Evaluation of Electronic Maze Ball Game 21

G. Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Dimmer Circuit for Fluorescent Lamps 22

H. Technical and Engineering Review of Memory Gaunett Material Configuration Thermal Improvement for "bubble" Alpha Reduction in Si. Type 23

I. Cover Letter and Perliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Portable Hand Controlled Cement Finishing Machine 24

J. Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Solar Transceiver 25

K. Memo, Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Relay Voltage Surge Protector 26

L. Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Means of Controlling Lateral Movement of a Helicopter 27 SUMMARY

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center handled a total of 32 projects during this quarter. Interaction with other TCCs in the network continues to increase. Because its funding has been renewed, TUCC plans to concentrate on developing a more structured approach to assisting minority-owned firms with identifying new or existing technology from the private and government sectors to enable them to increase their production, expand their capability, and/or acquire new product lines. This will eventually mean more involvement by TUCC's Resource/Advisory Council members. Hopefully, this will contribute to the center's getting more products commercialized and to assist more minority firms. Additionally, TUCC plans to encourage this involvement by inviting a select group of minority firms to our Resource/Advisory Council meeting in November. This will be the first time minority firms have participated in this way. This meeting will serve as a forum for exchanging information about what the firms' needs are and how TUCC can help them. It is anticipated the meeting will provide the firms with a better understanding of the program and the concept of technology commercialization. INTRODUCTION

This report describes the work performed during this quarter (July, August, and September 1983) by the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. It is divided into three major categories: WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, and PROGRAM ANALYSIS. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER is described under three main topics: Product/Venture Ideas, Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas, and Resource Searches and Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs. The PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT section describes TUCC's administrative efforts, its plans, and various interrelated activities involving TUCC supportive staff, advisory council members, TUCC participants, and other TCCs. This section has six main topics: TUCC Administrative Activities, Supportive Staff Activities, Resource/Advisory Council Activities, TUCC Participating Firms Activities, and TUCC Networking Activities. Program Analysis, the final section of the report, describes the TUCC's Director's view of the program's progress, its effectiveness, and its future. This analysis is based on involvement and understanding of the program by TUCC's clients, its Advisory Council members, and the TUCC's support staff. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) handled 32 product/venture ideas during this period (Attachment A). Twenty-four of the projects were product/venture ideas requiring preliminary technical and engineering evaluations, sixteen were new (Attachment A), and eight were technology identification services rendered to minority-owned firms. Five of the 24 product/venture ideas resulted from TUCC's outreach and marketing efforts; eight were received from TCCs in the TCC program network; and four originated from other MBDA programs: two were from BDC (California and Augusta, GA) and two were from the Rural Assistance Program. At the end of this quarter seven evaluations on product/venture ideas were completed. Two were referred, one to a Georgia Business Development Center and one to the Arizona State TCC.

Product/Venture Ideas

The following is a capsule description of the product/venture ideas and minority-owned firms assisted during this quarter.

Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization Kibbie Kapsule TUCC continues to assist the inventor of this leak detection device, Kibbie Pellette, in improving this product and expanding its market. This quarter TUCC worked with the inventor assisting him in submitting a response to the Small Business Innovations Research Program (SBIR). The Kibbie proposal addressed the research for a Leak Detection Device. Georgia Tech's Energy and Materials Science Laboratory is the proposed subcontractor to Kibbie Corporation. The subcontractor will perform the technical aspects of the proposal (Attachment B). Quick Switch -- Work on marketing this product continues. This quarter TUCC has suggested that the inventor contact, a minority inventor and manufacturer of a similar product to determine whether an arrangement could be established where the inventor from California might assist our client with commercializing this product through his outlets. The inventor in California is a client of TEREC --the TCC in that area. Discussions between the two have begun (Attachment C).

Evaluations Completed Lawn mower Attachment -- This product, a cleaning attachment for lawn mower's has been evaluated and is technically sound, but will require additional engineering design and modifications before it can be commercialized. Additionally, some study of the market is necessary (Attachment D). Skirt Valve -- TUCC believes that the idea is new and technically sound. However, actual tests must be performed by the Federal Government or a recognized independent laboratory before its real commercial potential can be determined (Attachment E). Electronic Maze Ball Game -- The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that this young adult and adult game is sound and can be manufactured. Additional engineering and design is necessary. The product idea was referred to the Augusta Business Development Center for further assistance (Attachment F). Dimmer Circuit -- TUCC's evaluation determined that although the product is not new, the circuitry is. The circuit is being manufactured and can be done inexpensively. The product's commercial success is not dependent upon engineering and technical activities, but on whether available, identifiable, and adequate markets exist (Attachment G). Memory Chip -- A review of the material submitted by the Rural Enterprise Development Center - TCC indicated that the "Memory Garnett Material Configuration Thermal Improvement for bubble Alpha Reduction in Si Type" is not a state-of-the-art concept and has no commercial potential (Attachment H). Silent Alarm System -- This system to locate and identify stolen automobiles has been reviewed by TUCC and is considered sound. Further discussions between the inventor and the TCC staff assisting the inventor

-4- are necessary. Discussions would address problems that must be overcome if the product/venture idea is to be commercialized. TUCC is awaiting a reply from IITRI-TCC. Portable Hand Control Cement Finishing Machine -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the product's concept is technically sound and can be manufactured. However, a great deal more engineering will be required before the product can be commercialized. Its commercial potential is dependent upon its market (Attachment I). Micro-Computer Software Package for Agribusiness -- TUCC reviewed the technology and referred the client to Arizona State -TCC. Solar Transceiver TUCC's evaluation determined that the idea is unique, but its commercial potential at present is low because the concept has no market acceptance (Attachment J). Voltage Serge Relay Protector -- The technical and engineering evaluation indicated that the product is sound and can be engineered; however, there is no market demand. This technology is to slow to be used by commercial enterprises in the business of supplying energy protection (Attachment K). Concept to Control Lateral Movement of Helicopters -- TUCC's preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the principle is sound. However, the inventor draws invalid conclusions and the product has no commercial potential as presently designed (Attachment L).

Product/Venture Ideas and Technologies Undergoing Further Exploration Spring Holley Motor -- TUCC and its supportive staff submitted a proposal to the Tennessee Valley Center who stated they would consider funding for further evaluation of the inventor's concept to determine its commercial potential. Portable Colostomy Kit -- TUCC's supportive staff produced a set of pre-production drawings for the product concept and also requested assistance from TUCC's Resource/Advisory Council member, General Electric.

-5- We requested that they review the proposed drawing and materials which are designed for use in constructing this device. Spill-Aid TUCC and the Montgomery Business Development Center are working together to assist Mr. Roberts, the inventor with building a prototype. The Montgomery Business Development Center has requested that we perform a pre-market study to identify the market since their attempts did not yield good results.

Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation Baby Rainware -- This product was referred to TUCC by the Atlanta Business Development Center. The inventor has designed a special rainwear for infants. Tube Mate -- This product, a device for squeezing toothpaste from a tube automatically, was referred to TUCC by the Rural Assistance Program. Shower Bath Economizer -- This product idea, a means of using waste bath/shower water to save energy for heating bath water, was referred by a TUCC Resource/Advisory Council member, TVA. The product requires further indepth evaluation. Portable Answering Service -- This device is a variation of existing beepers. The inventor is combining a minicassette and voice activator and adding them to the beeper function.

Resource Searches and Technology Identifications for Minority Firms and Entrepreneurs

Terry Manufacturer TUCC's support staff has visited with Mr. Terry to discuss plans for identifying new product lines for his firm. No specific product lines or new technology have been identified, but discussions are underway regarding specific areas of interest. Consolidated Industries -- This electronics firm has a new product idea -- a portable electronic cable tester. TUCC has determined that the product concept is technically sound. TUCC will use its resources to design this proposed product. Once the design is completed, the company

-6- will build the prototype at TUCC's suggestion. TUCC's resources will then test the product's capability and manufacturing potential. Trianna Industries -- Trianna Industries is seeking to expand its manufacturing capability and has asked TUCC to assist them with identifying the technology needed to perform work for the automobile industry. AIV Corporation -- This Atlanta firm is seeking to get into a compatable product line. The company's President was introduced to the Vice president of Westinghouse for the Atlanta Region. TUCC will discuss opportunities for the company with Westinghouse. Metropolitan Pallet -- The President of this company requested assistance in two areas; evaluation of a new product idea and assistance utilizing new technology to improve inventory control. TUUC's support staff, Grant Curtis, has been assigned to assist with identifying new technology for inventory control. P&P Industries -- This company requested TUCC's assistance with building a manufacturing model for a robotic arm and work station for handicapped veterans. The Veterans Administration has asked this minority firm to construct this manufacturer's model. TUCC will use its in-house resources to assist the firm. Peel Technical Services -- This fabrication job shop is requesting assistance with expanding and finding its own product line. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

TUCC Administrative Activities

The administrative aspect of TUCC's operation is going very well. The transition from the national office to the Atlanta office was accomplished without difficulty. The TUCC Director attended the Atlanta Regional Conference in Florida which was very informative and well managed. The TUCC Director has worked to assist the Rural Assistance Program meet some of its goals. He has also worked with the program's new staff acquainting them with the program's objectives and Georgia Tech's administrative process. The TUCC Director has talked with several Resource/Advisory Council members about the identification, transfer, and commercialization of technologies that could be matched with minority-owned manufacturing firms. We believe our efforts will encourage a stronger interest by the Advisory/Resource Council members in TUCC's activity. We hope that advisory council members will become more involved in product evaluation, technology transfer, and product commercialization. This will be the major topic at the Resource/Advisory Council meeting. It is anticipated that general strategies will be developed at this session. In preparation of this activity, TUCC is working to refine and implement its cooperative agreement between TUCC and participating firms. The first action of this plan involves a manufacturing firm in Alabama with whom TUCC is working jointly to assist with the development of a portable cable tester. The TUCC Director is working closely with the Southeastern Regional Director of the Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC) to establish contacts for identifying new and existing technologies that may be suitable for use and commercialization by minority-owned firms who are TUCC clients and other MBDA program clients. The director has been asked by the FLC Director to serve on a task force to assist with program strategies and plans to make

-8- this region's FLC members more responsive to technology matching organizations' requests. The TUCC Director assisted the national office with developing a response to the IG's draft report criticizing the Technology Commercialization Program. It is hoped that this response will adequately squelch the concerns about the program's visibility.

Support Staff Activities

The supportive staff members involved in evaluating product/venture ideas continue to do outstanding work. They have consistently been able to evaluate product/venture ideas and return reports within the established time (30 days) for completing preliminary technical and engineering evaluations. This year we have begun discussions with the participating Engineering Experiment Station Laboratories about extending their involvement. The discussions address ways of using the EES Laboratory resources and staff to assist and support minority-owned firms interested and capable of responding to research R&P put out by the Small Business Innovation Research Program. These discussions have recieved an extremely favorable response from many of the laboratory directors. As a first attempt to initiate the activity, TUCC encouraged the Kibbie Corporation to work with the Energy & Material Sciences Laboratory to develop a proposal which could be submitted to the Defense Department. The proposal was submitted and the firm is awaiting a response. Discussions are now taking place with other laboratory personnel. TUCC has also begun to discuss the possibility of having the EES Laboratory seek to identify needs in growth industries such as health care and electronics. Discussions are still under way. One area of concern is how these activities will be supported and who will fund this kind of needed activity. Resource/Advisory Council Activities

TUCC's Annual Resource/Advisory Council Meeting will be held on November 29, 1983. This year's program discussion will focus on continuing with last year's effort to position TUCC as a unique organization that assists MBEs acquiring new products and penetrating technology-based industries. One major corporation, the Honeywell Corporation has agreed to serve on our Resource/Advisory Council this year. The TUCC staff is making plans to invite and encourage all members to attend. More importantly we anticipate that the program will invite and encourage minority-owned manufacturing firms to participate in the discussions of how to get more activity from all involved with the program's efforts to identify, transfer, utilize, and commercialize new products and technologies.

MCC Participating Firms

TUCC's program area of evaluating product/venture ideas is operating smoothly enabling the Director to devote more time to develop effective ways of providing technology commercialization services to minority-owned manufacturing firms. The TUCC Director has talked extensively with minority-owned firms to obtain information about how to get matchable technology into their hands and assist them with the commercialization and utilization of these technologies. The discussions indicate that TUCC must become more involved with helping the firms develop a scenario for acquiring resources as well as technologies. It also must become involved in helping the firms become more astute and knowledgeable about identifying business opportunities. Further, TUCC must help the firms develop an objective realistic business plan for growth and expansion (this includes considering the need for new machinery and personnel). Work with new and existing participating client firms will encompass a plan to accomplish these objectives. The activities of the Rural Assistance Program will be a vital aspect of this overall plan. Because TUCC is not funded to perform some of the needed management and technical services needed by the minority-owned

-10- manufacturing firms, these duties and program activities must be implemented through the Rural Assistance Program.

TUCC Networking Activities

This quarter TUCC's interaction with other technology centers in the network continues to grow and improve. The centers appear to have a better understanding of the need to utilize our services and how they can enhance their operations. Most have used TUCC to perform technical and engineering evaluations on inventions they have received. TUCC has received requests from all of the TCC in the network, and it appears that this center has been most helpful to the newer centers. As details are worked out about TCC's operating structure and changes from a headquarters operation to a regional operation, it is anticipated that the volume of requests will increase. PROGRAM ANALYSIS

The TUCC Director is pleased with the progress of the center. It is also gratifying to have an additional program resource, the Rural Assistance Program, that can expand the TUCC's resources. While both programs support each other, they are two separate areas that can assist each other in various ways. The TUCC's Director has devoted considerable time to each program in an effort to establish a strong working relationship that would enhance the development and growth of minority- owned manufacturing and business enterprises. The stability of the TCC program is a concern of this director, because its continuation directly effects the program's effectiveness. The uncertainty and eruption of problems distract and interrupt all the director's efforts to implement the program's objectives and clients' confidence in the program. This unfortunate fact prevents TUCC from operating at maximum effectiveness. ATTACHMENTS

-13- Attachment A

Projects Handled by TUCC During This Quarter Reports Handled By TUCC

• Gupta Lawn Mower Attachments

• Spring and Valve Skirt

• Baby Rainware

• Electronic Maze Ball Game

• Dimmer Circuit

• Memory Chip

• Silent Alarm

• Cable Systems

• Automatic Cigarette Dispenser

• Portable Hand Controlled Cement Finishing Machine * *

• Micro-Computer Software Package for Agribusiness

• Solar Transceiver

• Tube Mate

• Voltage Surge Relay Protector

• Means of Controlling Lateral Movement for Helicopter

Hydro-Scrub - Delta Engineering and Manufacturing Co.

Shower Bath Economizer

Spring Holley Motor

Alpha II & III * * *

Roofing Single (roll-up type)

Portable Colostomy Kit

Portable Answering Service **

Spill-Aid ***

-15-

Minority-Owned Firms Served

* Digital Radio Corporation

Kibbie Corporation

Terry Manufacturing

Consolidated Industries

Trianna Industries

AIV Corporation

Peel Technical Services

Metropolitan Pallet Company

P&P Industries

* New Request ** Request from TCCs in the network *** Request for other MBDA programs Attachment B

Cover Letter & Technical Proposal To Defense Small Business Innovation Research Program FY 1983

Submitted Kibbie Corporation and Engineering Experiment Station

4,* KIBBIE CORPORATION Corporate Headquarters: Post Office Box 456 Abbeville, Louisiana 70510 318.893-0361

Houston Office: 12503 Exchange Drive Suite 514 Stafford, Texas 77477 713 491-2772

May 23, 1983

CDR, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory ATTN: CERL-PP Box 4005 Champaign, Illinois 61820

Dear Sir:

The Kibbie Corporation, a minority-owned corporation, is pleased to submit the proposal titled, "Research and Development of a Leak Detection Device". Our response is in reference to the Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR, 83.1), research topic page 52, cc. Leak Detection Device (1).

The Georgia Institute of Technology's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory will actively consult during Phase I of the proposed research project.

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center, located on the Georgia Tech campus, will be the project coordinator between Georgia Tech's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) staff, Kibbie Corporation, and DOD. TUCC's responsibilities will be to handle communications and assure understanding of tasks, progress, that time schedules are being met, and that work on the project is proceeding as planned.

The Kibbie Corporation would like the opportunity to demonstrate the concept at your facility. We look forward to receiving your response.

Sincerely,

Kibbie Pillette (713) 491-2772 DEFENSE SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM (SBIR) FY 1983

A PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF A LEAK DETECTION DEVICE

PREPARED FOR

CDR, CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ATTN: CERL—PP, BOX 4005 CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61820

- 1) BY KIBI3IL ' TION

ABBEVILLE, LO , 0510

AND

ENERGY 6c MATERIALS SCIENCES LABORATORY ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TECHNICAL OBJECTIVE

SUMMARY OF THE CONCEPT

CONSTRUCTION

FEATURES

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

WORK SCOPE

TASK I (TECHNICAL ANALYSIS)

TASK II (FIELD TEST AND EVALUATION)

DELIVERABLES

KIBBIE CORPORATION (MINORITY/SMALL BUSINESS)

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

BUDGET ESTIMATES Technical Objective The proposal is to determine the scientific and technical merits of utilizing the "Kibbie Kapsule" as an early warning and control system for potentially dangerous pinhole leaks in choke bodies, ells, tees and fittings as found in liquid distribution systems.

The prime contractor will be the Kibbie Corporation, P.O. Box 456, Abbeville, Louisiana 70510. The Georgia's Institute of Technology's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory will actively consult during Phase I of the proposed research project.

Summary of the Concept The "Kibbie Kapsule" is a unique, patented sealed covering which encapsulates chokes, fittings and other critical potential-leak areas for liquid distribution systems. Any appreciable pressure increase inside the Kapsule (caused by leakage from the encapsulated fitting) can activate a pilot valve or the Kibbie unit; blocks and bleeds supply pressure; closes the safety valve; and sounds an alarm to alert.

This swift and critical action takes place when pressure builds up within the Kapsule reaches an adjustable limit as low as 1Y2 psi. The Kibbie Kapsule offers particular advantages on sand-condition wells with which can be safely produced at maximum rates because of the Kapsule's ability to react to pinhole leaks before they become hazardous and costly cutouts.

Construction The Kibbie Kapsule body is constructed of Valox, a high-impact plastic developed by General Electric. Neoprene rubber stabilizer rings and a silicone gasket sealant are utilized to create an effective seal between the Kapsule body and the encapsulated pipe and/or fitting. The sensing pilot and valve unit is of stainless steel to prevent corrosion (in offshore applications). The Kibbie Kapsule installation can be custom- fitted for a particular application. The Kapsule can be tested prior to and in service by increasing the interior pressure with an outside air source.

3 Features o Instant well or liquid distribution system shut down upon leak occurance o Increased safety by minimizing the risk from fire or pollution o Reduced manpower and required on-site inspection o Easily installed and serviced o Ready access to the encapsulated fittings o Economic benefits from higher safe production or distribution rates

Background Information Since the inception of production of hydrocarbons from beneath the earth, the producers have been plagued with the problems of internal and external erosion and corosion. This wearing away of the metal and weakening of the structural integrity of the forged steel piping and fittings (in the flowline) has been the cause of the loss of many lives and billions of lost dollars in facility destruction and loss production.

One example of this type of erosion or corosion is sand production. The presence of sand at the surface in production well equipment presents a very serious problem for equipment operators. When sand is produced along with hydrocarbons, an internal sandblasting effect is directed upon areas of stress i.e. (areas of pressure drops through valves and fittings, high velocity in small diameter pipe and fittings, changes in internal diameters, direction changes) all of which increase the eminent destruction of these forged steel fittings. Fittings located along these areas in the piping system undergo certain and varying amounts of sand erosion, physically being destroyed from the inside out. As a result, tiny pinholes are usually blasted through the walls of these fittings. The present safety systems now in use was designed to detect large fractures or ruptures and can only be activated by large pressure drops; as a result, minute leaks continue until they reach catastrophic proportions.

The "Kibbie Kapsule," can detect pinhole leaks and: Wit shuts down the well or source of flow the instant the leak occurs (for holes as small as 1/100 of an inch); (2)It sends an alarm so proper corrective measures may be taken or can activate a parrallel liquid distribution system.

4 The principle on which the "Kibbie Kapsule" works has been proved through demonstrations of a test model and actual field testing. The system is comprised of an adaptable covering that fits and is sealed around any type of fitting or connection in the area to be protected. The covering has a sensing pilot attached which monitors the pressure inside the cover. Whenever a leak occurs inside of this covering the sensing pilot will sense a change from atmospheric pressure as low as (1.5 to 2.0 PSI) and shut off the source of flow. "Kibbie Kapsule" can: (I)Provide a first line defense for the control of pollution caused by leaks; (2)Allow the operators to produce at maximum rates with no fear of uncontrolled cut-outs; (3)Is a system for detecting minute leaks in high to low pressure piping systems.

5 Work Scope The overall program will require two tasks: Task I (Technical Analysis) Task II (Field Test and Evaluation)

Task I (Technical Analysis) Task I will include a technical analysis of the "Kibbie Kapsule" to ascertain the feasibility of utilizing the "Kibbie Kapsule" as a leak detection device for relatively low-pressure water and other liquid distribution systems. Principle areas to be investigated will include the applicability to: (a) Pressure range less than 100 PSI (b) Leak detection/alarm capabilities for water and oil (or mixtures) (c) Compatibility to distribution system materials such as steel, PVC, FRP, AC (d) Threshhold level of detection capabilities and response rate to leakage (e) Methods of interfacing with micro-processor control systems (f) Material characteristics and capability to ambient temperatures as per appropriate Mil-Spec (g) Design limitations as related to variation in distribution pipe diameter

Task H (Field Test and Evaluation) Task II will include field testing of the "Kibbie Kapsule" with variation in the liquid line distribution pressure, type of liquid, and system materials. The purpose of this task is to evaluate under field test conditions the capabilities of the detector to detect and signal a potential leak problem. Five units will be fabricated by the Kibbie Corporation with test locations determined by the sponsoring agency. The field test wil determine:

(a) Ease of installation and service requirements (b) Actuation sensitivity to variation in pipe diameter (c) Combatibility with distribution systems on worldwide military installations

6 Identified Deliverable The primary deliverables will consist of: (1) Summary Report Task I - Technical Evaluation (2) Five "Kibbie Kapsules" installed (designated location by the sponsor) (3) Summary Report Task II - Field Test and Evaluation (4) Final Report

Kibbie Corporation The KIBBIE Corporation became a legal entity on July 1, 1977 and is a minority- owned corporation. The principle stock-holders are Kibbie Pillette (70%), Percy Lormand (25%), and Percy Lormand Jr. (5%). KIBBIE Corporation is the marketing entity for the "Kibbie Kapsule" and owns an exclusive license to develop and market the product. Mr. Kibbie Pillette, the principle stock-holder is the inventor of the "Kibbie Kapsule." This company was capitalized originally with $50,000.00 and since that time has spent $300,000.00 in research and development costs.

The manufacturing of the basic unit is done by Plastiline plastics of Pompino- Beach, Florida--the material used for the unit is Valox, a high impact plastic developed by General Electric and is in abundant supply. The rubber seals are manufactured by Bayou City Rubber of Houston, Texas, and can easily be supplied. The sensing pilot is "KIBBIE" Corporation's design, and is manufactured in Louisiana and by Axelson Incorporated of Longview, Texas. The final assembling is done by KIBBIE Corporation.

Our process has been granted a patent and we have filed five foreign patents in the countries of Japan, West Germany, France, Holland, and the United Kingdom. We have filed additional patents on an improvement, and on the method of installation. Our patent attorneys are the firm of Keaty, Keaty, and Garvey, of New Orleans, Louisiana.

Current Management The firm is currently being managed by Kibbie Pillette, President, and Percy Lorman, Sr., its Secretary Treasurer.

7 Kibbie Pillette, a petroleum engineer with 10 years field of production with Union Oil Company is the inventor of the "Kibbie Kapsule" and has four years of experience as the owner and manager of a Construction Company.

Percy Lormand Sr., a local business man with 40 years of business experience, owner and manager of Lormand Construction, Lafayette Construction, Land and Offshore Enterprises and a computer firm.

Mr. Kibbie P. Pillette, President of the Kibbie Corporation Mr. Kibbie P. Pillette is a native of Abbeville, Louisiana, and attended James A. Herod High School, Abbeville, Louisiana. Upon graduation, he served 3Y2 years in the Army where he was wounded in Vietnam. He then entered the Gulf Area Voch-Tech School, Abbeville, Louisiana and received a degree in Accounting and Business Administration. He then entered the University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana, majoring in Electrical Engineering. He had earned 100 hours in E.E. when he became interested in the Petroleum Industry. He was employed by Union Oil Company of California as a Production Operator where he worked for 5 years. He then transferrd into the Drilling Department for 2 years. The Company offered him the opportunity to return to college. Mr. Pillette re-entered U.S.L. where he received a degree in Petroleum Engineering. He worked for 3 additional years in all phases Production, Drilling, and Resevior. Mr. Pillette is an elected member of the Vermillion Parish School Board, and belongs to numerous Social and Trade Organizations.

8 Georgia Institute of Technology Engineering Experiment Station

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

SHAKUN, WALLACE--Senior Research Engineer Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory

Education Ph.D. in Engineering, University of Glasgow 1969 M.B.A. in Finance, University of Louisville 1976 M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of Vermont 1965 B.M.E. in Mechanical Engineering, City University, State of New York 1958

Employment History Georgia Institute of Technology Senior Research Engineer, 1980-Present Manager, Industrial Programs Office 1982-Present Modernfold (American Standard) Vice President Engineering 1978-1980 General Electric Company, Advanced Design Engineer 1972-1978 Torin Corporation, Director Research and Development 1969-1972 General Electric Company, Advanced Design Engineer 1960-1966 U.S. Army (Ordnance Corps), 2nd Lieutenant 1958-1960 Experience Summary: At Georgia Tech, responsibilities include industrial program development and interdisciplinary coordination for the Energy and Material Sciences Laboratory. Requires a close working relationship with the Group-Branch manager in order to establish and implement an agressive based strategic technology plan with measurable goals. Provides administrative leadership in the development and support of contract activities for the industrial and government sectors. Experience as a principal investigator on externally funded major research projects requiring a full spectrum of management and technical contributive activities. Demonstrated ability to interact effectively and target resources to take advantage of research opportunities in national recognized requirements. While at Modernfold, was vice president of divisional engineering with functional responsibility for product development and application for both the domestic and international markets. Extensive involvement into product-marketing decision making requiring a multi-discipline approach in analyzing potential financial implications on asset management. Participating member of the strategic and operational planning function with responsibility for engineering-financial analysis of potential corporate acquisitions. At General Electric conducted new product development studies related to high volume consumer product engineering. Solid understanding of high technology production techniques with creative measurable results into: modulated compressor performance, high efficiency climate control systems, comfort-cost analysis procedures, heat-pump performance envelopes. In depth program experience identifying and evaluating thermal economics of various energy production alternatives. Direct technical contributive corporate research into the analysis of

301 9 SHAKUN, WALLACE 2 Biographical Sketch

Experience Summary (continued): direct energy conversion techniques, solar energy, two phase flow effects as related to improvement in turbo- machinery and statistical thermodynamics. Activity varied from hardware development to fundamental research studies. Major responsibility at the Torin Corporation was to coordinate and to technically contribute as Director of Applied Engineering. Established and organized a responsive engineering function with measureable product results. Introduced program management procedures for evaluating the impact of high technology on new product development. As an advanced design engineer at General Electric Company, conducted applied research into products for both the defensive and industrial market. In depth experience into electro- optical systems for direct military fire-control systems. Experience included both theoretical modeling to the production of highly specialized military systems. In the U.S. Army was commissioned as a Second Lieu- tenant with the Armor Board with responsibility for weapon system modeling, testing and evaluation. Introduced statistical-management control techniques (P.E.R.T) in order to effectively monitor and control contractor performance.

Current Fields of Interest Developing and implementing a full spectrum of industry sponsored major research in high, technology areas; providing administrative and technical leadership as the principal investigator for research into the mechanical sciences as it impacts on new product development.

Special Honors Registered Professional Engineer, Vermont Chartered Engineer, United Kingdom Associated Fellow, Royal Aeronautical Society Fellow, University of California, 1967 Graduate M.B.A. with high honor, 1976

Patents 1. "Portable Psychrometric Test Apparatus and Method for Air Conditioning Equipment," U.S. Patent No. 4,196,628 (14 April 1980), co-inventor 2. "Portable Air-Conditioning System for Mobile Home," U.S. Patent No. 3,996,762 (28 October 1976), co-inventor

Major Reports and Publications 1. "Functional Requirement Document of the Servicewide Building Inventory and Analysis Needs Assessment," Project A-3340, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1983 2. "Industrial and Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives," Project SE-2201, 1982, coauthor ..:. "Vibration Analysis of a Vaporization Cooled Transformer," General Electric Company, Project A-2901, 1982, coauthor 4. "Solar Bottle," Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center, Project A-3036, 1982 5. "Linear Heat Generator," Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center, Project A-3036, 1982 6. "Solar Oxy-Hydrogen Vehicle," Technology Utilization and Commercial- ization Center, Project A-3036, 1982

10 301 SHAKUN, WALLACE 3 Biographical Sketch

Major Reports and Publications (continued): 7. "Rotary Fluid Motor," Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center, Project A-3036, 1982 8. "Dynamics of an Empty and Liquid Filled Transformer Tank," General Electric Company, Project A-2901, 1981, coauthor 9. "Industrial Noise Control," prepared for Noise-Con, Purdue University, 1979 10. "Solar Energy for Residential Application," General Electric Internal Report, 1977, coauthor 11. "Eutectic Mixtures as Thermal Storage Media," General Electric Internal Report, 1977 12. "Thermal Energy Storage," General Electric Internal Report, 1976, coauthor 13. "Air Flow System Efficiency (Axial Flow Fans)," General Electric Internal Report, 1976 14. "A Computer Program for Determining the Gross System, Pump Capacity as Measured by Refrigerant Parameters," General Electric Internal Report, 1975 15. "A Mathematical Technique for Determining Comfort with Control Modulation," General Electric Internal Report, 1975 16. "Heat and Cool Storage for a Known Residence in Philadelphia, Pennsyl- vania," General Electric Internal Report, 1975, coauthor 17. "Energy Usage for Residential Comfort Heating and Cooling," General Electric Internal Report, 1975, coauthor 18. Carnot Efficiency of a Heat Pump," General Electric Internal Report, 1975, coauthor 19. "Comfort Determination as Related to the Operation of a Two-Stage Thermostat," General Electric Internal Report, 1974, coauthor 20. "Electric Heating with Thermal Storage," General Electric Report, 1974, coauthor 21. "Cost Comparison of Heat Pumps and Conventional Systems," General Electric Internal Report, 1974, coauthor 22. "A Technique for Determining the Operational Characteristics of a Thermoelectric Module," Energy Conversion 12, pp. 41-44 (1971) 23. "A Technique for Calculating the Performance of a Two-State Cascaded Peltier Device Operating Between Heat Source and Heat Sink, with Finite Heat Transfer Coefficients," Energy Conversion 11, pp. 55-61, (1970) 24. "Operational Characteristics of Thermoelectric Refrigeration," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow, Scotland, 1969 25. "Recoil Adapter Design Procedure," General Electric/U.S. Air Force Internal Report, 1965 26. "Mathematical Model of a Dynamic System Having Multiple Degrees of Freedom," M.S. Thesis, University of Vermont, 1964 27. "Accuracy Evaluation Monographs," U.S. Army Armor Board, 1960 28. "Method of Computing Dispersion Error in Fire Control System," U.S. Army Armor Board, 1959 29. "Application of Statistical Methods in Tank Gunnery," U.S. Armor School, 1959

301 11 GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT), located in Atlanta, Georgia, was founded in 1885 as a co-educational institution of higher learning.

The Georgia Tech Faculty and Staff have established an international and national reputation in many engineering and scientific fields and provide government and industry with technical and scientific expertise through basic and applied research.

Interdisciplinary studies and applied research at GIT are conducted through the Office of Interdisciplinary Programs (OIP) and the Engineering Experiment Station (EES). The OIP serves to focus specific faculty as individual researchers or as members of interdisciplinary teams on research opportunities with both government and industry. EES is an applied research organization that performs investigations in applied engineering science, computer technology, and economic development for a diversity of sponsors, including federal, state and local governments, industrial firms and foreign governments.

Contracts are handled through the Georgia Tech Research Institute, a non-profit Georgia corporation. Contracts are usually of the cost-reimbursable (no fee) type. GTRI support includes contractual relations and copyright and patent procedures associated with the performance of research projects for outside sponsors.

The EES accounting system is based on the requirements of a cost- reimbursement contract, as defined by the Defense Acquisition Regulation, Section, XV, Part 3. The system is under continuous audit by the U.S. Government and the State of Georgia. Overhead and indirect charges are based on a predetermined, fixed percentage rate that is negotiated for fixed periods, pursuant to DAR 3-704.2(b)/OMB Circular A-21. The basic cost center is the "project," and the computerized accounting system is designed to record and monitor the cost categories associated with each identifiable project.

12 General Facilities

Georgia Tech has outstanding support facilities on campus. The Price Gilbert Memorial Library's scientific, engineering, architectural and management collection is one of the largest in the Southeast. A CDC CYBER 170/730 computer system is available in a central computer facility. The CYBER system operates in a multiprocessing, time-sharing mode to serve the needs of on-site batch, remote and interactive terminal users.

13 ENERGY AND MATERIALS SCIENCES LABORATORY

The Energy and Material Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) is one of the Resource Laboratories of EES. Its mission is applied engineering and science in energy production, materials development and evaluations, and environmental issues. These are three divisions associated with the Laboratory.

The Energy Science Division concentrates in two areas: solar energy and biomass conversion. The latter is further divided into chemical and thermal (pyrolysis) conversion of biomass into useful fuels. Processes to convert wood to ethanol and wood to gaseous and liquid fuels are under study.

The Chemical and Environmental Sciences Branch concentrates on the application of chemical and instrumental techniques to analyze process streams, effluents, etc. It works separately and jointly with other units in EMSL, depending on program needs.

The Materials and Sciences Division is composed of two Branches: Materials Characterization and Materials Research and Development. The Materials Characterization Branch provides research services in scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, optical microscopy, metallography, and optical spectrochemistry. The Materials R&D Branch is involved with polymers, paints and coatings development and evaluation, ceramic materials, randomes (fabrication and characterization), and high temperature materials.

EES's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory (ESML) has remained in the technological forefront of a variety of research fields for more than 20 years.

A forward-looking R&D organization, EMSL is sensitive to industry needs. The laboratory is stafed by 45 experienced engineers and scientists. The staff specializes in fulfilling the needs of R&D sponsors through a broad range of applied research

14 involving chemical, mechanic!, aerospace, civil and ceramic engineering, physics and chemistry. Experimental and analytical research is directed into energy, the development of advanced materials, environmental problems, and processes requiring interdisciplinary approaches.

Budget Estimate The total estimated budget for this project is $85,589 and will be completed within six months.

On the following pages is a breakdown of estimated cost for work performed by the Kibbie Corporation (the prime contractor) and Georgia Institute of Technology's Energy and Material Sciences Laboratory. The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's liaison and coordinating activities are performed at no cost to the contractor.

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center will be the project coordinator liaison between Georgia Tech's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) staff, Kibbie Corporation, and DOD. TUCC's responsibilities will be to handle communications and assure understanding of task, progress, that time schedules are being met, and that work on the project is proceeding as planned. The contact person for this project will be Edwin A. Bethea, TUCC's Director.

Dr. Wallace Shakun will be the project director for subcontract work being performed by Georgia Tech's EMSL. He will be responsible for overseeing and managing the task being performed by staff in his lab. He will keep TUCC, Kibbie Corporation, and DOD informed of project progress and notify all of any changes in task or duration of the project prior to taking action.

15 BUDGET ESTIMATE ENERGY AND MATERIALS LABORATORY

CATEGORY TASK I TASK II

Personal Senior * Senior Research Engineer (300 hours X $28.64/hr.) * 1.07 $ 9193

Graduate Research Assistant (250 hours X $10.40/hr.)* 1.07 2782

Fringe Benefits Senior Research Engineer (23.262 / of P.S.) 2138

Materials and Supplies 125

Computer Modeling 500

Travel (as required) 750

TOTAL DIRECT COST $ 15488 Overhead (49.8 / of TDC) 7713

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 23201

Rates are estimated by inflating current year rates by 7% ** Rates are anticipated for the period 7/1/83 - 6/30/84 and are subject to adjustment upon DCAA audit or ONR negotiation.

16 BUDGET ESTIMATE KIBBIE CORPORATION

CATEGORY TASK I/TASK II

Personal Services (720 hours X $20.00 /hr. $14,400

Materials and Supplies 5-Leak detection systems (- 5" 0.D.) $19,250

Travel (Installation) $ 2,000

TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES $35,650 Overhead (75% of TDC) $26,738

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $62,388

17 Attachment C

Letter of Interest from Advance Systems Concepts, Inc. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.

P.O. BOX Q • ALTAI:SENA. CALIFORNIA 91001 • (213) 6845461 • 794-2308

August 19, 1983

Anthony Acosta Creative Computer Resources P.O. Box 48485 Atlanta, Georgia 30362 Dear Tony, I enjoyed our conversation Tuesday about representation in the Atlanta area. Enclosed is our rep. contract for your review. We need information on you and your outsides sales person, including description of background and experience for our files. We are getting a lot of action and expect rapid growth over the next twelve months. I look forward to a long, profitable relationship and welcome your association with Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc. I will call you shortly to discuss this further. In the meantime, please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely yours,

Dr. Eric MacCalla President Attachment D

Cover Letter and Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Cleaning Attachment For Use On Lawn mowers

-19- THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

August 23, 1983

Vijai P. Gupta, Ph.D. 816 Newton Road Berwyn, PA 19312

Dear Dr. Gupta:

Enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's (TUCC) preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of your product concept "Cleaning Attachment for Use on Lawn Mowers." TUCC's evaluation determined that the product concept is sound; however, before the product is ready for commercialization, additional engineering and design work must be performed. The commercial potential cannot be determined until market research is performed to provide information on existing competitive products (air blowers and others), cost and the demand for your attachment.

TUCC cannot make specific recommendations about product modification without seeing the prototype, viewing the drawings and witnessing a demonstration.

Should you have questions about the evaluation, please contact the center. It is hoped that the information and evaluation have been helpful.

Sincerely,

r Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate dc TUCC Director

Enclosure

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical Evaluation of CLEANING ATTACHMENT FOR USE ON LAWN MOWERS Submitted by V.P. Gupta - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Lawn Mower Attachment" concept was performed by staff of the Economic Development Laboratory Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further, it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

EVALUATION SUMMARY The technical and engineering evaluation of the "Cleaning Attachment for Use on Lawn Mowers" determined that the concept is technically sound and it can be engineered for production. Its commercial potential, however, cannot be determined since it appears that its commercial success will depend heavily upon market research information. Further, additional product development (engineering and design) will be necessary before the innovation is ready for production.

EVALUATION ANALYSIS According to the literature and the data submitted, the product is functional; however, there is a need to have the prototype undergo additional development. The brushes must be more substantially attached since failure of the product to operate properly would be very dangerous to the product and to the individual. Such safety related problems must be addressed and resolved. TUCC also foresees the issues of product liability arising. Consideration of how best to resolve this issue must be considered.

August 1983

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency TUCC suggests that the brushes be made of nylon or some other softer material which is more suitable than wire. These items could be bought "off the shelf" thereby reducing cost of the product. Provisions must also be made for testing the product's performance capability. The test should be performed by independent testing agency. However, the product should be able to confront construction joints without failure. Additionally, the inventor must consider building the attachment steady enough to withstand the shock of being dropped off the edge of concrete sidewalks or driveways. Thus, the attachment and the brushes must be able to strike the edge of walkways solidly and keep working without creating hazardous situations.

The product idea is sound and will require no special tooling to manufacture. The attachment may be the only part to manufacture and this component can be manufactured without difficulty.

In order for TUCC to provide more specific advice about the product's development needs, the prototype would have to be viewed and demonstrated. However, it is our opinion that a more expensive unit might be considered which would incorporate a reduction gear unit and a very large slow turning brushes.

August 1983 Attachment E

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical & Engineering Evaluation of Spring and Valve Skirt THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

August 3, 1983

Mr. E. Bruce Beasley III President Middle Atlantic Technology Center 3700 National Drive Suite 219 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612

Dear Bruce:

Enclosed is the technical and engineering evaluation report of the SPRING AND VALVE SKIRT product. The evaluation determined that the product concept appears technically sound, but it also appears to have very limited commercial potential; however, this cannot actually be determined without subjecting the product to performance test. Although it is our opinion that the product will neither perform as explained nor accomplish its claims, TUCC feels that testing should be done before any definite conclusions are drawn about the product.

It is suggested that you contact the National Bureau of Standards and ask Mr. Jim Wyckoff if he can perform test on this product. If the Bureau of Standards will not perform the test, contact Mr. Michael Mastracci at the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Wyckoff can be reached at (301) 921-3814; and Mr. Mastracci can be reached at (202) 382-7667.

I hope this information will be helpful. Should you have questions about the evaluation, please call.

Sincerely, eS77,„&s._ Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate do TUCC Director enclosure

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of SPRING AND VALVE SKIRT Submitted by Locke Moore - Inventor Referred by MID ATLANTIC TCC

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the SPRING AND VALVE SKIRT concept was performed by staff of the Economic Development Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further, it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

EVALUATION SUMMARY The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the SPRING AND VALVE SKIRT product concept determined that the idea is new; that It appears to be technically sound; and it can be manufactured. However, the evaluator expressed concern about the product's capability to resolve the problem it proposes to addressi improving the functioning of an internal combustion engine and preventing pollution and emissions. It is TUCC's opinion that an operating test should be performed to determine the product's efficiency, effectiveness and its performance life cycle. Without such test results, TUCC feels that the product's chances for commercial success is poor.

EVALUATION ANALYSIS Efforts to reduce excess oil consumption in older automobiles (4-5 years old and over) and the associated particulate exhaust emissions involve considering several aspects of the automobile's operation. Often the above is the result of multi problems

August 1983

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency not only problems that result from excess oil around the valve springs, rocker-arms, valve guides or stems. Worn piston rings can be another cause. Further, this product may work efficiently for a short period of time, but the evaluator questions Its ability to be a long term solution.

Actual performance test have not been performed on the product; however, it is recommended. This test is needed to prove the inventor's claim and to help develop a marketing strategy. If there is definitive data that support the inventor's claim, the test will increase the product's chances of getting to the market place . Without such data, the product has very poor commercial potential.

August 1983 Attachment F

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical & Engineering Evaluation of Electronic Maze Ball Game THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

July 13, 1983

Mr. Charles Sapp 6/A Bennett Lane P.O. Box 1973 Augusta, Georgia 30901

Dear Mr. Sapp:

Enclosed is a copy of the technical and engineering evaluation report of your product concept the "Electronic Maze Ball Game." The evaluation determined that the product concept is technically sound, and that it can be engineered and manufactured; however a great deal of development work is required before its commercial potential can be determined.

Further, because your concept is not a new technology, but a variation of a product derived from existing technology, the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center cannot provide further free services.

The Engineering Experiment Station has staff knowledgeable about computer games design and development, and TUCC would be happy to put you in contact with them. Should you desire this assistance, we can be reached by telephone weekdays between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm at (404) 894-3833.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director cc: David Poss

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical Evaluation

ELECTRONIC MAZE BALL GAME

SUBMITTED BY

CHARLES SAPP - INVENTOR

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the ELECTRONIC MAZE

BALL GAME CONCEPT was performed by staff of the Economic Development

Laboratory of the Engineerin Experiment Station at the request of the Technology

Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determing the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential.

The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further, it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

EVALUATION SUMMARY

The Technology Utilization-and Commercialization Center's technical and engineering evaluation of "Electronic Maze Ball Game" determined that the concept is technically sound. The concept is not new technology but a variation and modified adaptation of existing technology. The product can be manufactured, but product specification and design must be developed. The commercial potential of the product depends heavily upon a media marketing effort. This may require a considerable amount of capital or

July 1983

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency it will require getting a major electronic game manufacturer interested in the sale and distribution of this product. Thus, its commercial potential cannot be definitively stated.

EVALUATION ANALYSIS

Although the evaluation determined the product is technically sound, there are several major concerns about this product concept that will require a great deal of further exploration. The product can be manufactured, but product specifications and design drawings must be completed. The product's engineering detail will have to be developed and a prototype must be built.

Additionally, the product will be in competition with a great deal of other similar products and its life span appears very short. Special tools will be required for molds and dies. This will require considering who will pay for the development of this product; TUCC does not get involved in financing product development. Further, it is TUCC's opinion that this product will require specialized marketing assistance from individuals or companies who know about the uniqueness of computer games and their markets.

July 1983 Attachment G

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Dimmer Circuit for Fluorescent Lamps THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of Me University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia :30332

August 10, 1983

Mr. Raul Quiros Acting Assistant Director for Enterprise Development Minority Business Development Agency U. S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230

Dear Mr. Quiros:

Enclosed is the preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Dimmer Circuit for Fluorescent Lamp. The evaluation determined that this product is not new although the circuit is. Further, the TUCC evaluator feels that the circuit can be manufactured inexpensively. The question of the product's commercial success, however is not related to its engineerng and technical aspects but more closely to its market and its ability to compete with other existing products.

TUCC suggest that a market study be performed by a reputable firm familiar with the electric lighting industry and not by a generalist. The margin of profit for such products is an important factor and persons knowledgable about the Industry is more likely to provide Applied Optic Kenetics and Baltimore Electronics insight regarding cost savings.

TUCC hopes the information has been helpful. Should you have questions, please contact me at (404) 894-3833.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Sr. Research Associate Sr TUCC Director

EAB/feh

CC: T. Lettes D. Rakes W. Brewster

Enclosure

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Dimmer Circuit for Fluorescent Lamp Applied Optic Kinetics LTD & Baltimore Electronics Submitted by National Minority Business Development Agency

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Fluorescent Light Dimmer Concept was performed by staff of the Technical Application Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation forcused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the Inventor's concept and Its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation Is in no way Intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary: The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product concept Dimmer Circuit for Fluorescent Lamp is not new technology; but a variation of existing technologies. The concept is sound and the circuit, which is new, appears well thought out and relatively easy to manufacture. The commercial potential of this product can not be definatively determined without first testing the product. Even with good test results, It Is our opinion that the commercial success and profitability will depend upon the results of a good market study.

Evaluation Analysis: A review of the patent documents submitted concerning the Applied Optic Kinetics (AOK) Dimmer Circuit for Fluorescent Lamp indicates that the design seems from an analytical viewpoint, to be sound. The circuit seems well thought out and Inexpensive to manufacture. In principle it should work, although actual performance can only be ascertained by product testing. It is imposible to determine analytically whether or not all of the claims made by AOK for the dimmer can be met. TUCC, however Is

August 1983

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency skeptical of any dimmer that claims a capability to produce a 25% increase in the lumens/watt efficiency of the fluorescent bulb. Those types of claims are made by virtually all makers of energy conservation miracles, so that does not constitute a major problem, but these claims need to be substantuated by some creditable results.

This is not a new idea--only a new circuit for doing the same thing dozens of other devices do. There will be plenty of competition with an already established infrastructure, therefore, a market study is more appropriate for this product than indepth engineering analysis.

Therefore, it is the evaluators opinion that the product has a good chance for success from the technical/engineering viewpoint, based on the thorough but reasonably simple design. The primary consideration for whether this product can be profitable should be based on a market analysis.

August 1983 Attachment H

Technical and Engineering Review of Memory Gaunett Material Configuration Thermal Improvement for "bubble" Alpha Reduction in Si. Type THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

August 16, 1983

Mr. Paul Cartledge, Director Rural Enterprise Development Center P.O. Box 1335 132 North 12th Street Durant, OK 74701 Dear Paul: TUCC reviewed the information you submitted regarding the "Memory Gaunett Material Configuration Thermal Improvement for "bubble" alpha Reduction in Si type." The concept was discussed with Dr. John W. Hooper, director of Georgia Tech's Microelectronics Research Center, who also reviewed the material with the understanding that he would call the inventor or the referring agency if additional information was needed to understand the concept. Based on data in hand, the evaluator feels that the inventor does not have a state-of-the-art concept. Although Gaunett material is used in developing memory chips, it has nothing to do with "bubble" memory; therefore, the evaluator determined that there was no need to talk with the inventor. Further consideration was given to the fact that the inventor may have presented his points poorly; however, it was concluded that the inventor's use of terms and principles is confused. Therefore, TUCC's evaluator saw no need to call the inventor or the referring agency. Should you have questions about the comments, please call. Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Attachment I

Cover Letter and Perliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Portable Hand Controlled Cement Finishing Machine THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

October 24, 1983

Mr. E. Bruce Beasley, III President Middle Atlantic Technology Center 3700 National Drive Suite 219 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Dear Bruce: Enclosed is TUCC's preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report of the PORTABLE HAND CONTROLLED CEMENT MACHINE. Our evaluation determined that the product concept is sound, and it can be manufactured from existing technology; however, a great deal more research and development is needed before the commercial potential can be determined. Information regarding the product's manufacturing cost and its need and acceptance in the construction industry is needed. The material you submitted for evaluation is also returned for your records. Should you have questions about the evaluation, please call. Sincerely, / L / Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director Enclosure

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of ihe University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL EVALUATION of THE PORTABLE HAND CONTROLLED CEMENT FINISHING MACHINE SUBMITTED BY MIDDLE ATLANTIC TECHNOLOGY CENTER EVANS BELL - INVENTOR

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of THE PORTABLE HAND CONTROLLED CEMENT FINISHING MACHINE concept was performed by staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further, it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

EVALUATION SUMMARY The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of THE PORTABLE HAND CONTROLLED CEMENT FINISHING MACHINE determined that the proposed invention is technically sound and can be manufactured using existing technology. However, it is our opinion that considerable engineering design efforts may be required if the design is not performed by an engineer or a company familiar with the manufacture of portable tools.

The commercial potential of the concept cannot be determined since no cost estimates of components were reviewed. Therefore, TUCC cannot make any definitive statements about the product's capabilities to penetrate the marketplace or its acceptance as a new product.

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency EVALUATION ANALYSIS Although the preliminary evaluation determined that the product is technically sound, several concerns are raised. Much more information is needed about the stated process for which the equipment will be used and its proposed cost saving aspects. Additionally, will the finish obtained by this machine be acceptable to the customer? If the finish is a plaster type layer applied to a wall, will it adhere for the life of the structure?

It appears that a prototype must be developed and tested if definitive support is to be generated for the product. Further, this product will attempt to penetrate an industry that is reluctant to accept new ideas and resist changes; therefore, it is suggested that an investigation of the product's needs be performed to gain additional insight about the industry's attitude regarding this new device. Attachment J

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Solar Transceiver THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

October 14, 1983

Mr. Thomas M. Jacobius, Director IITRI Technology Commercialization Center 10 West 35th Street Chicago, Illinois 60616

Dear Tom:

Enclosed is TUCC's preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report of the "Solar Transceiver." Additionally, we are returning the material you transmitted.

The product is unique, interesting and technically sound. Its commercial potential depends upon the market and the cost of manufacturing. Previously, this type of product was non-commercial because of the high cost of production and manufacturing problems. Sometimes things do change.

Thank you for using us. Look forward to seeing you and hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

Enclosure

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical Evaluation of SOLAR TRANSCEIVER GEORGE PARDO - INVENTOR Submitted by IITRI - Technology Center

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Solar TransceiverTMl' concept was performed by staff of the Energy & Materials Science Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further, it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

EVALUATION SUMMARY The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product idea is technically sound. The concept of absorbing heat in a phase-change material and depending upon the outside-inside temperatures, transfers heat into the room (heating mode) or to transfer heat out of the room, is a unique idea. Further, TUCC's evaluators feel the product can be engineered. Its commercial potential, however, cannot be determined until additional marketing data is provided.

EVALUATION ANALYSIS - The overall idea and the packaging is a unique idea as a heat transfer room supplement. Phase change material as a thermal energy storage media has had little market acceptance due to: o Cost of material o Reliability of the material o Large size for reasonable return on investment o Control complexity

A Program of the U.S. Department of r: ,re, Minority Business Development Agency The ultimate success of the "Solar Transceiver" as a marketable end product will be dependent upon: (1) Cost to the consumer as a packaged end product (2) Energy savings realized during the heating and cooling season (3) Ease of installation as related to overall weight and physical required size for a realistic heat balance (4) Realibility of the phase - change material to perform under changes in seasonal conditions. (5) The cost of product distribution to an identified end user. (6) The form in which the product will be available, i.e., preassembled or in kit configuration (packaging). (7) The relative simplicity for controlling the reflective surfaces. (8) Ability to meet the applicable codes, i.e., U.L. (9) Availability of the phase change material at a cost competitive to pure water.

It is our opinion that the following is needed: o Determine the realistic market size. o Determine base manufacturing cost. o Establish patent position. o Complete a preproduction unit incorporating what is a basic model configuration. o Develop a market plan. o Market test at a show like American Society of Heat, Refrigeration, Air Condition Engineers that held semi annually. o Determine license possibilities.

TUCC does have one slight concern about the amount of heat that can be transferred. Data about this factor may have increased our positive attitude about the product had it been submitted. Additionally, TUCC has enclosed the article, Thermal Energy Storage With Phase-Change Material, for your information.

October 1983 Attachment K

Memo, Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Relay Voltage Surge Protector THE TECHNOLOGY L. iLIZATION AND COMMERCIA. ZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

November 2, 1983

MEMORANDUM

TO: Frank Brown, Director Rural Assistance Program (RAP) FROM: Edwin A. Bethea, Director Eit) Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) SUBJECT: Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of The RELAY, VOLTAGE SURGE PROTECTOR--Electro National The TUCC technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product is sound and can be engineered and manufactured; however, its commercial potential is uncertain because our preliminary inquiries about the product's need with potential customers indicate there is no market demand. Further, the evaluation determined that the product, as designed, is too slow to meet the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) regulations and specifications for protection devices used to prevent damage to central office equipment from voltage surges of a specific type.

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE RURAL ASSISTANCE PROGRA...

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

November 2, 1983

Mr. Jeffrey Doose Manager Resource Development Electro National P.O. Box 588 Greenville, MS 38701

Dear Mr. Doose:

The attached information represents the results of a preliminary technical evaluation of the Relay, Voltage Surge Protection Device submitted earlier this year to the Rural Assistance Program. As indicated, the product concept is technically sound; however, there are indications that rise time is too slow to meet design criteria established by the Federal Communications Commission.

Similarly, the product's market appeal appears limited. As Such, your ability to adequately develop and penetrate the market is also limited.

While the prospects for this particular device are not encouraging, the Rural Assistance Program is still open to assist your business in any other way that we can. Should you identify other needs, please contact me directly.

Sincerely,

Frank B. Brown Rural Assistance Program Director

Enclosure

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY U l ILIZATION AND COMMERCIAL ,LATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical Evaluation of A RELAY, VOLTAGE SURGE PROTECTION DEVICE ELECTRO NATIONAL - OWNER REFERRED BY THE RURAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the RELAY, VOLTAGE SURGE DEVICE concept was performed by staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further, it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

EVALUATION SUMMARY The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product concept is technically sound and can be engineered and manufactured. Its commercial potential cannot be definitively determined because it appears that no specific identifiable market exists for the product as it is designed. Preliminary inquiries with potential users indicate that there is no immediate demand.

EVALUATION ANALYSIS FCC regulations specify design criterion for protecting central office equipment (telephones, etc.) from apparent low dielectric conditions caused by lightning strikes and other voltage surge conditions. This device, as designed, is much too slow to be used to protect such equipment. Further, this device also has built into the coil circuit

August 1983

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency an undefined transient protector circuit which is capable of protecting the relay coil from voltage surges.

The use of the transient protector as a separate protection device was considered. It is our opinion that separating the circuit protector from the relay is feasible, however, its device would have to be cost competitive with existing devices currently in use. Further, if the circuit protector is designed only to be cost competitive, it would be very difficult for an unknown manufacturer of such a product to penetrate the market and become profitable, since our preliminary discussions with potential customers indicate they are happy with current products and would consider switching if it were engineered better or it costs less than existing products.

August 1983 Attachment L

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Means of Controlling Lateral Movement of a Helicopter THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

August 8, 1983

Mr. Paul Cartledge, Director Industrial Technology Research & Development Innovation Center P. 0. Box 1335 132 North 12th Street Durant, OK 74701

Dear Paul:

Enclosed is the technical and engineering evaluation report for the "Means for Controlling Lateral Movement of a Helicopter". The evaluation determined that the inventor's concept principle is sound, however, the conclusion the inventor draws are invalid, therefore, the concept has no chance for commercial success.

Enclosed also is the materials you submitted for the evaluation. Should you have questions about the evaluation please call.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Sr. Reserch Associate & TUCC Director

EAB/feh

Enclosure

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency

••• THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University Sysiem of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332 Prelimary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Means for Controlling Lateral Movement of a Helicopter Roberto M. Garza - Inventor Submitted by ITRAD-TCC

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Means for Lateral Movement of a Helicopter" Concept was performed by staff of the School of Aerospace Engineering, Engineering Experiement Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept. Evaluation Summary The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Means for Controlling Lateral Movement of a Helicopter" determined that the principle upon which the concept is based is valid, but the conclusions are not. Thus, although the concept is sound, the chances for commercial success of this product idea is extremely poor.

Evaluation Analysis Controls similar to that described in the subject paper have typically had some success on helicopters having counter-rotating rotors, intermeshing rotors, or tip-jet-driven rotors and on gyro-copters. In all of these types of aircraft, the control is a yaw control only so that the side forces that are provided are relatively small (need only be large enough to turn the aircraft). In fact, all of the inventions cited were used in these types of aircraft.

However, for single-rotor helicopters whose rotors are shaft driven (engine directly drives the main rotor through a transmission), the "spinner" (counter-torque rotor or tail rotor) sek wes not only as a yaw control but must also provide a counter torque or reaction to keep the fuselage from turning or rotating in a direction opposite to that of the lifting rotor. These reactive forces are much larger than the yaw control forces

August 1983 A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency that are required. Thus while the principle upon which the control is based is valid for some flight conditions, the invention, itself is not physically practical for any flight condition of shaft-driven, single-rotor helicopters.

August 1983 QUARTERLY REPORT Project A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

By Edwin A. Bethea, Project Director Project Advisory Team Fred Cain Davis S. Clifton, Jr. Hans 0. Spauschus Hardy S. Taylor

Under Grant #98-10-80018-01

DECEMBER 1983

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY A Unit of the University System of Georgia Engineering Experiment Station Atlanta, Georgia 30332 1983 Quarterly Report October, November, and December 1983 Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER QUARTERLY REPORT

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist Project Director

Staff Advisory Team

Fred L. Cain Director Electronics and Computer Systems Laboratory

David S. Clifton, Jr. Director Economic Development Laboratory Hans Spauschus Director Energy & Materials Science Laboratory

Hardy S. Taylor Associate Director Economic Development Laboratory

This report was accomplished with financial assistance from the Minority Business Development Agency, U. S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations and other data in this report are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Department of Commerce. This material is the result of tax-supported research and as such is not copyrightable. It may be freely reprinted with the customary crediting of the source.

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Engineering Experiment Station Economic Development Laboratory Atlanta, Georgia 30332 December 1983 Quarterly Report October, November, and December 1983 Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER 3

Product/Venture Ideas 3 Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization

Evaluations Completed 4

Product/Venture Ideas and Technologies Undergoing Further Exploration 4 Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation 5

Resource Searches and Technology Identifications for Minority Firms and Entrepreneurs 6

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 8

TUCC Administrative Activities 8

Support Staff Activities 9

TUCC Participating Firms 10

TUCC Networking Activities 10

Resource/Advisory Council Activities 10

PROGRAM ANALYSIS 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Page

ATTACHMENTS 13 A. Cover Letters to Referring BDC, the Client, and Experts from the Pre-Market Study

B. Memorandum and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Report of Tube Mate C. Letter to Karen I. Duckett RE: Continued Assistance

D. Cover Letter and Technical and Engineering Review of Driv-Shu

E. Letter to Mr. C.B. Williams and Letter from the General Electric Company RE: The Colostomy Kit F. Correspondence RE: Shower Bath Economizer Comments RE: Test Plan; Memo RE: Status of Testing Program Memo RE: 7th Coordination Meeting G. Correspondence to Participants in MED Week Letter to: Calvin Espy, Columbus Sanders, Sherry Johnson, and Dr. William Gamble, Jr. Agenda: ATDC Presentation

H. Seminar Agenda for Resources Available for Medical Device Development and FDA Approval Procedures

I. Proposals submitted to TUCC From ECSL/Bio Medical Research Division For Commercialization of Federally Developed, Biomedically-Applicable Technologies by Minority-Owned Small Businesses

J. Cover Letter and FLC Fall Meeting's Agenda

K. Letter Inviting TUCC's Director To Attend the Meeting RE: Improving the Quality of Life for Older Americans L. Memorandum RE: Distinguished Alumni of Knoxville College

M. Memorandum RE: TUCC Resource/Advisory Council Meeting N. Sample of Letter Inviting Minority Firms to Participate in TUCC's Resource/Advisory Council Meeting 0. Summary Report - TUCC Annual Resource/Advisory Council Workshop/Seminar; Agenda - TUCC Annual Resource/Advisory Council Workshop/Seminar; Sample Letter of Thanks for Attendee Participation SUMMARY

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center handled 33 client cases this quarter. Interaction with other TCCs in the network decreased, probably because their concerns were focused on the progrma's survival. TUCC has been involved in a variety of program related activities that have generated additional visibility. For example, the Center's staff participated in Minority Business Enterprise Week, and the Director chaired a panel discussion held by the Federal Laboratory Consortium on Technology Transfer. He also attended a seminar on Medical Devices and FDA's procedure for getting medical products to the marketplace. Additionally, TUCC has begun to develop a more focused approach to assisting minority- owned firms with identifying new and existing technologies from the government and the private sector. TUCC is also investigating ways for the Resource/Advisory Council to become a more active partner. This was the main thrust of this year's Resource/Advisory Council meeting. INTRODUCTION

This report describes the work performed during this quarter (October, November, and December 1983) by the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. It is divided into three major categories: WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, and PROGRAM ANALYSIS. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER is described under three main topics: Product/Venture Ideas, Discontinued or Inactive Product/Venture Ideas, and Resource Searches and Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Minority Entrepreneurs. The PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT section describes TUCC's administrative efforts, its plans, and various interrelated activities involving TUCC support staff, advisory council members, TUCC participants, and other centers in the network. This section has six main topics: TUCC Administrative Activities, Support Staff Activities, TUCC Participating Firms, TUCC Networking Activities, and Resource/Advisory Council Activities. Program Analysis, the final section of the report, describes the TUCC's Director's view of the program's progress, its effectiveness, and its future. This analysis is based on involvement and understanding of the program by TUCC's clients, its Advisory Council members, and TUCC's support staff. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER

This quarter is generally a very slow period for client involvement and program activity. Considering this trend, TUCC's activity for this quarter was atypical. The center serviced a total of 33 clients. Seven client files were closed. Seven new Product/Venture Ideas were received: one was a request from the IITRI-TCC to perform a preliminary technical and engineering evaluation, and the remaining six were from inventors in the region serviced by TUCC. Technology identification activity with participating firms continues. In December, TUCC discussed with Honeywell Corporation and the General Electric Company specific commercialization opportunities for Delta Manufacturing and Sales, Inc., which owns Hydro-Scrub. The center is also exploring the same kind of opportunities for Mr. Clarence Williams, the inventor of the Colostomy Kit, with the Veterans Administration at the regional level. Additionally, TUCC's coordination efforts to get EES' Electronic Laboratory to serve as a subcontractor to a California minority- owned firm bidding on a large defense contract ended when the California firm, Digital Radio Corporation, was not selected as the minority contractor for the project. Preliminary technical and engineering evaluations were completed on three product/venture ideas and services to two minority-owned firms were terminated and two remain inactive.

Product/Venture Ideas

The following is a capsule description of the product/venture ideas and minority-owned firms assisted during this quarter.

Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization Kibbie Kapsule -- TUCC continues to explore additional market opportunities for this inventor's product with the Electic Power Research

-3- Institute. Additionally, TUCC was informed that the proposal that the Kibbie Corporation submitted to the Defense Department's Small Business Innovation Research Program was not funded; therefore, continued research for this product is at a standstill.

Evaluations Completed Spill-Aid -- The ore market study for this product, a device for preventing drips and spills of liquid from gallon cans, was completed. The results indicated that at least two similar products are already on the market, and that these items are slow sellers. TUCC informed the inventor and the referring BDC of our findings and mailed each a copy of our report. Our cover letter explained that further help would have to come from the Montgomery BDC, the referring agency (Attachment A). Tube-Mate -- This product/venture idea, a holder and mechanical tooth paste squeezer, is sound and may have some commercial potential; however, a definitive determination could not be given because only vague information was provided about the design and the material to be used to construct the proposed device. Our cover letter indicated that if additional detailed information were supplied, TUCC would reevaluate the product/concept (Attachment B). Baby Rainware -- The product idea is sound, but its commercial potential depends on the market demand and needs justification. TUCC has informed the inventor that unless we maintain better communications, we plan to close the file. Driv-Shu -- The TUCC technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product, as presently designed, cannot be manufactured and packaged for commercial purposes (Attachment D).

Product/Venture Ideas and Technologies Undergoing Further Exploration Spring Holley Motor -- TUCC is awaiting a response from the inventor regarding the Tennessee Valley Business Development Center's interest in funding the proposal for the additional engineering and design work to be performed by TUCC's support staff. Our last discussion with the inventor

-4- revealed there was still an interest by the Tennessee Valley Business Development Center (TVBDC). However, other issues had to be resolved before movement could take place. Portable Colostomy Kit -- The General Electric Company evaluated TUCC's drawing, and made several recommendations regarding the construction of the device. TUCC is arranging a meeting with representatives of the regional Veteran's Administration to discuss their interest in using such a device (Attachment E). Shower-Bath Economizer -- TUCC has asked a Resource/Advisory Council member to get TVA involved in performing tests on this product and evaluate its performance. TUCC's support staff are working with the TVA staff to develop criteria for evaluating the prototype and test results (Attachment F).

Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation Coffee Filter Dispenser -- This device holds and dispenses coffee filters for perculators. TUCC has asked the inventor additional information about his products. A Freon Operated Compressor -- This device can be used in refrigerators and is supposed to use less energy to operate. Review completed, evaluation in progress. The Revolving Mobilizer -- This device enhances primary or auxiliary means of propelling any vehicle. Review completed, evaluation in progress. Automatic Cigarette Dispenser -- An automatic cigarette dispenser and lighter. Product/Venture idea has been assigned to an evaluator. Cooking Utensil Holder -- This is a fabricated device used to hold cooking utensils in an effort to prevent accidents to children and older persons. Review completed, evaluator assigned. Solar Magnifier -- This device increases the suns rays, producing heat for residential use. The inventor was asked to send additional information detailing aspects of his concept and process. At the time of this report, TUCC had not yet received this information.

-5- The Total Solar Package -- This power-generating station uses freon to create a gas that rotates a power source (turbines). Review completed, product idea is being evaluated.

Resource Searches and Technology Identifications for Minority Firms and Entrepreneurs

Terry Manufacturer -- Work with this firm continues. A meeting to discuss specific technologies and product line is scheduled in February 1984. Consolidated Industries -- Discussions regarding the design of this firm's product/venture idea, a portable cable tester for electronic harnesses, is scheduled to begin in February 1984. Trianna Industries -- Support staff accompanied representatives of Trianna to Detroit to discuss possible work to be performed for Crysler Corporation. This contract work would enable Trianna to be sure of sustained operation while we search for new technology that would increase their production. The Rural Assistance Progam and TUCC are working jointly with this firm. AIV Corporation -- TUCC has had only telephone contact with this firm. The results of the meeting TUCC arranged for AIV with Westinghouse Corporation are not known. Metropolitan Pallet, Inc. -- Work with this firm has been terminated. The firm is bankrupt, and its assets are being sold on the open market. P&P Industries -- As of December, this firm had not received the contract to build a manufacturer's model of the robotic arm and work station for disabled Veterans. TUCC is maintaining telephone contact to keep abreast of developments. The contract paper work is scheduled for completion in February 1984. Peel Technical Services -- TUCC is awaiting results of a manufacturing profile being conducted on this firm. This information will aid in determining the firm's capabilities.

-6- Delta Manufacturing and Sales -- TUCC has received information from Honeywell that this company's new technology does not fit their product line, although Honeywell does manufacture hospital equipment. Honeywell's manager for Strategic Planning visited TUCC on January 31, 1984 to discuss the commercialization of this product. Additionally, TUCC plans to ask the owner of the product if he is interested in using one of our Resource/Advisory Council members facility as a test and evaluation site for Hydro Scrub. If the answer is yes, TUCC will contact Emory University about locating a machine(s) at its facility. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

TUCC Administrative Activities

TUCC continues to perform its administrative functions as well as possible under stressful circumstances. This quarter the Center's Director has been engaged in several activities that require his personal involvement, supervision, and coordinating efforts. His overall contributions received national recognition this quarter when the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education selected him as one of the Distinguished Alumni of Knoxville College. The award will be presented in March at a ceremony in Washington, D.C. (Attachment L). In October, TUCC participated in MED Week. The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center and the Rural Assistance Program, along with the Black Engineering Student Society at Georgia Tech sponsored a panel discussion on minority-owned firms. TUCC invited an inventor, Calvin Espy, and an engineering firm, Consolidated Industries, to participate in the panel discussion (Attachment G). Calvin Espy is a graduate of Georgia Tech and is the inventor of the Plant Revolver; Columbus Sanders, the President of Consolidated Industries was awarded Businessman for the Southeast Region. Additionally, the Rural Assistance Program hosted a seminar or quests from the Atlanta BDC who met with representatives of the Advance Technology Development Center at Georgia Tech. On November 19, TUCC held its Annual Resource/Advisory Council meeting. Although inclement weather prevented some members from participating, attendence was good. This year TUCC also invited a select group of minority-owned firms to participate. Our purpose was two-fold: (1) to enlighten the representatives about TUCC's in-house resources and (2) to provide them with a better understanding of how the program uses these resources to assist their efforts to expand and develop through the use of new technological devices and products.

-8- Also, in November the TUCC Director invited Mrs. Hugh Wright and Alberry Howard to attend a one-day seminar with him, sponsored by the Engineering Experiment Station's Bio-Medical Engineering Division and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Resources Available for Medical Devices Development and FDA Approval Procedures (Attachment H). The TUCC Director had already invited discussions on this topic with the Director of the Bio-Medical Engineering Division in an effort to get his unit to identify areas of need and growth technologies in the medical devices business sectors (Attachment I). The Director also serves as the chairperson on a panel which he was asked to organize. This panel informed its audience about the organization's functions, identified its customers, and described what special needs may be served by FCC organizations and others attending (Attachment J). In December, the TUCC Director was invited by Carbide Retiree Service Corps, Inc. (an organization of Retired Union Carbide Corporation employees) to a meeting in Columbia, South Carolina on Improving the Quality of Life for Older Americans. The Carbide group and the University of Wisconsin-Stout were displaying and discussing a new design which had innovative fixtures to serve the needs and limitations of older and handicapped people (Attachment K). A model was displayed at the meeting. The Director had the opportunity to meet the U.S. Commissioner on Aging, Dr. Lennie-Marie P. Tolliver and discuss TUCC as a possible resource program that could involve minority-owned firms and assist them with commercializing such innovations. A tentative meeting date to discuss TUCC's involvement is scheduled for February 1984. During this quarter the TUCC Director met with the program's regional monitor who was performing a program review. Results of the review are forthcoming.

Support Staff Activities

TUCC's support staff continues to contribute to the development of the Center. Additionally, they have helped with formulating our plans for the

-9- remainder of the grant year (Attachment M). Their services in the area of performing preliminary technical and engineering evaluations continue to function without difficulty.

TUCC Participating Firms

The activity with participating firms continues. TUCC invited seven minority-owned firms, of which five attended, to participate in its Annual Resource/Advisory Council meeting in November. The five firms attending the seminar/workshop were invited to become TUCC participating clients for this grant year (Attachment N).

TUCC Networking Activities

This section describes TUCC's interactions with other TCCs as well as inquiries about technology evaluation and commercialization from other MBDA funded organizations. Requests for technical and engineering evaluation have been slow this quarter. The I.G.'s report on the overall program and TCCs' concern over their continued existence probably contributed to this decline. However, inquiries about the TUCC program's evaluation process from other MBDA funded programs have increased. The following MBDA and state OMBE organizations have requested information:. Michigan Business Department Agency The Virginia Tidewater Area BDC West Palm Beach, FL BDC Washington, D.C. BDC Montgomery, AL OMBE Charlotte, NC BDC Savannah, GA BDC

Resource/Advisory Council Activities

The TUCC Resource/Advisory Council meeting was held as scheduled. The workshop/seminar focused on continuing our efforts to position TUCC as the

-10- recognized organization in MBDA and the region that assists MBEs with acquiring new products and technologies and with penetrating technology- based industries. The meeting was divided into two segments. The morning segment focused on acquainting the new Resource/Advisory Council members with TUCC's in-house resources and how they are utilized. The afternoon discussion focused on devising a system for implementing TUCC's objectives, including a better approach for involving the member corporations and organizations on the Resource/Advisory Council, support staff and participatng firms (Attachment 0). PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Although the future and the structure of the overall TCC program appears uncertain, TUCC has managed to maintain a stable relationship with its clients and other MBDA-funded programs. However, if the uncertainty continues over a prolonged period, this may affect relationships with clients and others. Resource/Advisory Council members were enthusiastic during this year's meeting and their comments and suggestions will enable TUCC to formulate sound strategies for the program. It is anticipated that the Center's efforts to coordinate the components (Resource/Advisory Council support staff and participating clients) activity will generate a senergistic model for assisting minority-owned firms to acquire, commercialize, and utilize new technology that will increase their production profitability. ATTACHMENTS

-13- Attachment A

Cover Letters to Referring BDC, the Client, and Experts from the Pre-Market Study THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

December 13, 1983

Mrs. Vera Harris Assistant Manager Montgomery Business Development Center 3080 Birmingham Highway Montgomery, Alabama 36108

Dear Mrs. Harris:

Recently you received a preliminary market report from Mr. Author Brown indicating that "Spill-Aid" is not a new concept because our investigation shows that at least two types of "Spill-Aid" exist and are already on the market. Therefore, since this product is not a new concept, it does not fit into the criteria of the Technology Commercialization Program and is more of a new business venture. TUCC is therefore referring the entrepreneure to your organization. TUCC has been delighted to work with you and assist you with guiding the entrepreneur's efforts, and we are grateful for your assistance and involvement.

Further, TUCC is returning the prototype to the inventor with the enclosed cover letter. Should you have questions about the marketing report or require further assistance from us, please call me or Art Brown.

Best wishes for the Holidays and the New Year!!!

Sincerely, c Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

Enclosures cc: Marshall Roberts

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

December 12, 1983

Mr. Marshall Roberts 310 South Hall Street P.O. Box 4973 Montgomery, Alabama 36101

Dear Mr. Roberts:

You have been forwarded the preliminary market analysis of the commercial potential of "Spill-aid." Our findings are that the product concept is not new; that at least two products are already on the market. The extent of competition for the product can not entirely be determined by our study, but there is evidence that the paint industry seems to be changing and it may not have a continued need for this idea. Although there is no sharp decline in the industry at this time, a more indepth study is needed to determine the business potential for this product. Further, since the product idea is not new, our program can no longer provide you assistance with getting this business started, therefore, we are re-referring you to the Montgomery Business Development Center for assistance.

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center hopes that it has been of some assistance and wishes you the best regarding your decision to pursue or not to pursue this business interest.

TUCC is also returning the prototype you submitted, and we appreciate your cooperation during the time you have worked with this program.

Sincerely,

LTAL3.),_' Z„-r' Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate do TUCC Director

Enclosure

cc: Vera Harris

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency MARKET ANALYSIS FOR SPILL-AID

FOR MR. MARSHALL ROBERTS

PREPARED BY ARTHUR L. BROWN GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NOVEMBER 1983 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION 1

PURPOSE 1

METHODOLOGY 1

MARKET ANALYSIS 2

A. Industry Paint Sales 2 B. Distribution Channels 3 C. Similar Industry Products 5 D. New Technology in the Paint Industry 6

APPENDIX SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS As a result of our analysis and findings and the existence of similar products that perform the same functions as intended for Spill-Aid, it is our opinion that a market does exist for this product. However, because of the identified competitive circumstances, the market potential for Spill-Aid must be quantified.

The technology presently exist for the manufacture of Spill-Aid. This fact is evidenced by the existence of two products on the market as well as previous information submitted which provides estimated production cost of two local Atlanta area manufacturers. The final cost for production and distribution and retail price determined must be weighed against the two identified competing products to determine if further product development is warranted.

Finally, new industry advances must be carefully researched. From our review in performing this analysis, new industry technology centers around reducing the number of paint applications as well as reducing the need for paint. These new technologies will thereby create fewer dependencies for Spill-Aid if implemented. INTRODUCTION The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center has entered into an agreement with the Montgomery Business Development Center to perform a technical and commercialization assessment of "Spill-Aid." "Spill-Aid" has been patented as a pouring accessory to reduce spills and make the pouring of a liquid easier.

This invention relates to a pouring accessory for a container storing a liquid, primarily paint, in primarily an airtight manner and having a pair of concertric spaced lips formed in the upper rim to form a trough. The installation of Spill-Aid is designed to rest in this trough and direct the stored liquid into a predetermined area without spilling of paint covering and obstructing the label with the enclosed material and reduces the need for cleaning. Exhibit 1 is provided here which is the patent for Spill- Aid along with conceptual drawings of the final product.

PURPOSE The purpose of this investigation of Spill-Aid is to determine the technical feasibility of the product. This initial investigation is to determine the feasibility of investing in an operation to manufacture and distribute Spill-Aid.

METHODOLOGY Market information was not specifically available for pouring accessories. Since specific industry data was not available, we determined that the demand for paint accessories would correlate directly with the sale of paint and, specifically, paint sold in one gallon cans. We, therefore, performed this analysis based upon industry paint sales data and other relevant information that would affect the pain accessories market.

Several sources of information were used in this analysis. These sources include: Publications Researched o The Kline Guide To the Paint Industry, Charles H. Kline & Co., Inc., Fairfield, New Jersey, 1981.. o Department of Commerce Industrial Reports, July 1983. o Modern Paint and Coatings, October 1983. o American Paint and Coatings Journal, October 11, 1982.

1 Associations Contacted o National Paint and Coatings Association, Incorporated o Federation of Societies for Coatings Technologies

Companies Contacted o Sherwin Williams o Dux Hardware

MARKET ANALYSIS The paint and coatings industry represents less than two-tenths of one percent of the gross national product. The primary users of paint are new construction, industrial shipments and maintenance for existing public and private structure buildings, plants and factories, residential homes and apartments, machinery, equipment and transportation equipment.

Pouring accessories are used with each of the various industry segments. However, the primary users of Spill-Aid will be industry sectors using the one gallon can.

A. INDUSTRY PAINT SALES Paints, for industry purposes, are categorized in three major areas: architectural coatings, product finishes -- Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) and special purpose coatings. Architectural coatings are characterized by several customer subsets. They are: o general public o contractors o commercial establishments o government and exports

Product finishes - OEM are coatings specifically formulated for original equipment manufacturers to meet conditions of application and product requirement. Few of these coatings are standard production paints. Special purpose paints are exactly the same as the name implies. They are predominantly used for applications where affected by extreme temperatures, chemicals, fumes, etc. Several end uses of special purpose paints can be identified which include such areas as industrial maintenance, automotive and machinery refinishes, traffic paints and other miscellaneous uses.

2 Table I shows sales and gallonage statistics for the paint industry from 1979 to 1981 with a projection to 1986. Each sales category and corresponding gallonage consumed shows constant growth patterns except in the product finishes area. These same trends are projected to remain constant throughout 1986. The primary reason given for the lack of growth in the product finishes - OEM group relates to the decline in overall economic activity. Architectural coatings production was slow in 1979 but rose in 1981 due to the rise in do-it-yourself paints.

Spill-Aid's demand will be primarily contingent upon the actual usage of round metal cans by the paint industry. Approximately 98% of all containers used were metal according to 1981 statistics. The remaining 2% consisted of plastic, experimental square containers, pails and drums.

Metal gallon paint cans, which are approximately 50 years old, have withstood new technologies by becoming more efficient in their design. Also, the metal paint can has survived to a large degree from lack of competitive products to show any superiority in performance. The metal paint can is, therefore, expected to be a main stay for usage in the paint industry. Table II provides an analysis of the number of paint cans used by the industry. Industry sources stated that for 1981, approximately 425 million one gallon cans were used. This represented approximately 50% of all metal cans used by the industry, which is the largest sector of metal can usage.

The automotive body refinishing sector of the painting industry has been targeted as a primary area for the proposed distribution of Spill-Aid. This sector, as defined previously, is included in the special purpose coatings sector. Sales and gallons consumed by the special purpose coatings sector which includes data for the automotive and machinery refinishing section.

B. DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS There are two prevalent channels of distribution for the three major product categories. The majority of product finishes and some special purpose coatings are sold directly to manufacturers with about 10% or less of the volume being sold through distributors and jobbers. In contrast, automotive refinishes and architectural coatings

3 move through a variety of channels as evidenced by Exhibit I.

EXHIBIT 1

DISTRIBUTION CHANNES FOR AUTOMOTIVE REFINLSHES FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS 1980 Million gallons

' ,•• • 1 • C n MANUFACTURERS 530 :t t e!'t ; •"C,

....,—,.., .'. WHOLESALERS 185 . -,.. HARD PAINT BLDG OTHER WARE 06% i 5% 6% 15%

270

RETAILERS 385

PAINT,GLASS,AND HARD DIP, 01K L OISCOLOST I BLDG OTHER IdtPICM&1400111 V ■ Plif TV WARE WALLPAPER 5% 5% s% le% 5% ' 55% _ ■

1 110

GOVT . .• COmmERVL EXPORT CONTRACTORS 180 GENERAL PUBLIC 285 INDUSTRIAL 30 35 Ibrow..1.•••••••■•■■•■•■■•

4 TABLE 1 U.S. PAINT INDUSTRY SALES AND GALLONS CONSUMED 1979-1981

Average annual growth rate $ Million 1979 1980 1981 1986 1981-1986

Architectural coatings $3,418.7 $3,641.2 $3,930.0 $4,540.0 3.596 Product finishes-OEM 2,284.0 2,418.5 2,565.0 1,710.0 -7.8% Special purpose coatings 1,322.0 1,576.2 1,890.0 2,085.0 2.0 Total $7,024.7 $7,635.9 $8,385.0 $8,335.0 -0.1%

Million gallons

Architectural coatings 571.3 529.5 545.0 630.0 3.0% Product finishes-OEM 332.1 298.2 300.0 200.0 -7.8 Special purpose coatings 165.5 191.4 195.0 215.0 2.0 Total 1,068.9 1,019.1 1,040.0 1,045.0 0.1%

Table II U.S. SHIPMENTS OF METAL CANS, PAILS, AND DRUMS Year Metal Cans Steel pails-a Steel drums - a 1971 835,000 25,253 2,635 1972 910,000 27,714 2,982 1973 835,000 31,006 3,243 1974 809,000 Not applicable Not applicable 1975 768,000 Not applicable Not applicable 1976 873,000 16,167 2,051 1977 834,000 19,611 2,235 1978 839,000 28,411 3,085 1979 846,000 19,051 3,135 1980 833,000 18,736 1,816 1981 840,000 15,785 1,475

TABLE Ill U.S. SHIPMENTS OF SPECIAL PURPOSE COATINGS BY END USE 1980 Million gal $ Million industrial maintenance 75 $ 570 Automotive and machinery refinishes 45 570 Traffic paints 45 245 Miscellaneous 26 191 TOTAL 191 $ 1,576 The paint industry is one of the few industries that sells a large part of its product through its own specialty retail outlet - the paint, glass and wallpaper store. Added to this dimension, several major retail outlets are owned and operated by manufacturers. Sherwin Williams, which is the largest company in the U.S., dollar sales has the largest number of branch stores with 1400.

The largest portion of paints are sold through retailers as shown by Exhibit 1. Of the 530 million gallons of paint sold, 385 million gallons are sold through retailers, 73% of paints sold in this category. Paint, glass and wallpaper stores represent the largest retailer of paints in the retail category with 55% or 212 million gallons being sold through these store types.

C. SIMILAR INDUSTRY PRODUCTS Two similar products were identified which perform the same function as Spill-Aid. These products are shown as Exhibits II and Ill. Samples of these products have been provided under separate cover from this report.

Exhibit 11 pictures a product called "flexi" - The Paint Can Spout. This product is manufactured by the Sven 0. Olsson Engineering Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota. A patent was submitted and approved on October 3, 1972 by the company. A copy of the patent is included as Appendix I. This product is made with the same concept as Spill-Aid. It attaches to the top of the paint cans side of the trough. When installed, it forms a cup which will channel the paint into the poured container. Flexi is made of rubber.

We were unable to identify a name and manufacturer for the product listed in Exhibit Ill. However, this product is made of plastic and is installed by inserting the attaching end into the inner diameter .of the paint can. Grooves are located on this inner diameter to keep it attached to the paint can.

Both products were located in retail outlets. Flexi was sold through a Sherwin Williams store and the plastic item from Exhibit III was sold in a local hardware store.

5 D. NEW TECHNOLOGY FOR THE PAINT INDUSTRY Historically, the paint industry has been very slow to adopt new technology. This is probably due to rather conservative spending for research and development. National Paint and Coatings Association statistics show that R&D expenditures amounted to 1.9% of sales for 1980. This total is below the average for the chemical and allied products industry which spends approximately 3.0% of sales on R&D. With this low investment, several product innovations are being considered. The industry is currently experimenting with thinner more durable coatings which cover a greater area and are more durable. Their end result is to reduce subsequent applications and with new electrostatic spraying devices, will reduce waste.

The automotive industry offers several challenges for increasing the use of paint in this industry. A significant increase has been noted in the use of a precoated metal sheet which decreases the number of coatings applied or needed by the vehicle. Vehicular sizes are decreasing, thereby, reducing the amount of paint needed per vehicle. Plastic parts which do not need a coating have found a large number of uses on the vehicle interior and exterior plastic applications are constantly being developed.

The paint can industry is experimenting with a plastic and a square can. The plastic can was introduced in 1960 but has never reached its potential. Several problems have limited the plastic cans success such as stacking strength, permeable to oxygen and vapors and recent development in the square can has sparked a great deal of interest. It was found to be more efficient in the use of storage space. Further study of the square can is underway.

6 Attachment B

Memorandum and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Report of Tube Mate THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

December 13, 1983

MEMORANDUM

TO: Frank Brown, Director Rural Assistance Program (RAP)

FROM: Edwin A. Bethea, Director 4-4,4A Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC)

SUBJECT: Preliminary Technical and Engineering Review of TUBE-MATE

The TUCC preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the TUBE-MATE determined that the product concept appears sound; however, more information is needed about its design and structure before a preliminary technical and engineering evaluation can be performed. The literature that was submitted indicated that the inventor had developed a prototype; this would also aid our evaluation of the product's commercial potential. Thus, until TUCC or RAP has received the above information, we cannot proceed with the preliminary technical and engineering evaluation.

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical Review of TUBE-MATE Inventor - Theodore Fowler, 3r. Referred by Rural Assistance Program

The preliminary technical and engineering review of the product/venture idea TUBE- MATE was performed by staff of the Business Development Division of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

EVALUATION SUMMARY A review of the material submitted determined that the product concept is sound as an idea. However, to determine the technical and engineering aspects and the commercial potential, TUCC needs to have more information about the design of the product concept. Any engineering drawing describing the demensions and material in which the product will be constructed of will enable our evaluators to determine more about the product's potential as well as its ability to penetrate the commercial market.

The Invention Marketing Incorporated report indicated that you have a prototype this would assist us in knowing more about your product and its commercial potential.

December 1983

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency EVALUATION ANALYSIS This product idea appears to have some commercial potential. However, there are several areas that more information is required before a definitive conclusion can be made, more information is needed about the product's design, the material which will be used to construct the device and whether the product idea has been patented. If a prototype has been produced, then it should be examined and reviewed as part of the technical and engineering evaluation.

December 1983 Attachment C

Letter to Karen I. Duckett RE: Continued Assistance THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

January 19, 1984

Mrs. Karen I. Duckett 1309 Lockhaven Circle, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30311

Dear Mrs. Duckett:

Our records indicate that the last written correspondence we have had with you was September 1, 1983, and we have not received any response. Therefore, this is to notify you that unless we are contacted before January 31, 1984 we will close your case file. Please understand that TUCC is still interested in assisting you; however, we can no longer maintain inactive client files.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate Sc TUCC Director

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Attachment D

Cover Letter and Technical and Engineering Review of Driv-Shu THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical Review of DRIV-SHU Johnnie B. Seay - Inventor

EVALUATION SUMMARY TUCC's review of your product concept determined that the idea is innovative and interesting. It is also technically sound and can probably be manufactured. However our concern is whether the product has any commercial potential and whether it can be manufactured in a portion that does not create a safety hazard forthe driver, and can be designed so that it is appealing enough to customers. Additionally, TUCC's evaluator is concerned about customer annoyance with the process of putting this product on and removing it just to prevent such scuffing.

EVALUATION ANALYSIS TUCC understands the inventor's aim in responding to an identified problem. There is no doubt that the problem exists; and since others have attempted unsuccessfully to address the problem, it certainly is with mixed feelings that we respond negatively to your approach to the problem. However, it is our opinion that the solution to the problem is not completely overcome by the inventor concept because of the inconvenience to the customer.

I. Keeping track of the wrap-around device that prevents scuffing. 2. The manner in which the device is attached may make it unsafe and hazardous for driving. 3. The effort the customer exerts in putting this device on and taking it off. 4. Customer appeal.

It is our suggestion that the inventor consider addressing the conditions, material, or the devices that cause scuffing, namely the floor mat or worn carpeting. Maybe what is needed is a new kind of floor mat; one that has matting in the area that causes the

December 1983

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency scuffs, one that will be secure, and not move around and one that gives protection to the shoe in this immediate area and one that will not allow the heel (ladies or mens) to get caught in the mat.

Should a device that is designed to meet those specification be developed, TUCC would readily consider evaluating the product idea and if its evaluation results show the device has commercial potential, we will be glad to assist with getting this product to the market.

December 1983 Attachment E

Letter to Mr. C.B. Williams and Letter from the General Electric Company RE: The Colostomy Kit THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unil of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

October 14, 1983

Mr. Clarence B. Williams, Jr. 2009 Broad Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Dear Mr, Williams:

We are sorry about the lack of communications with you regarding the progress of the COLOSTOMY KIT. However, some delay in the next step of the proposed development plan has occurred.

TUCC has requested that a market study be performed to determine the size of the potential market before a prototype is made. This is suggested because of the cost of making the initial plastic product. The Rural Assistance Program staff, who will be performing the study, has been unavailable for the past month. However, we anticipate the staff to begin the study before or at the end of October.

Enclosed for your information, from General Electric, are suggestions on component parts and approaches to the design and manufacturing of the product.

Thank you for being patient and having confidence.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

Enclosure

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency PLASTICS GENERAL ELECTRIC BUSINESS OPERATIONS GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY . . . NORYL AVENUE, SELKIRK, NEW YORK 12156 Phone (6111) 476-5640 NORYL PRODUCTS DIVISION

August 2, 1983

Wally Shakum (ENSL) Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332

Dear Wally, It was a pleasure discussing with you the use of NORYL resin for your portable colostomy kit. I recommend using FDA approved resin NORYL 731$. Enclosed please find a Design Guide which lists the typical properties of 731S on Page 62. After reviewing the print., 1 have the following recommendations. o The minimum radius on all fillets and rounds should be .020" to reduce stress concentxetion. For areas which may be highly stressed such as he base of the inlet/ Outlet nozzle, MO" minimum shvuld he used. Also, for molding purposes, each side will require 1° of draft. o The rib design on the inside of the lid (Section E-E) will cause a sink mark. This can be reduced by using a . le of draft per side (on rib only) and lowering the thickness of the rib to .075". o On Pages 33-51 of the Design Guide, several assembly techniques are outlined. I suggest using solvent bond- ing as a economical method to attach the parts. If a large volume of parts are manufactured, ultrasonic welding would be best. Also included is a tooling and processing review which outlines gating and other pertinent information. If you have any questions concerning these recommendations, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, greukatied Donald Nicoll, Design Services /ad Enc. cc: EBethea(Georgia Tech) FBlack(Fairfield, CT) RElliott(Atl) JFallows

nelgiAnations on the tabncetion and 110Plicelien of Cat malellela ate balled on beet awallaele technical dais and ate Offered as a auepastIon only. EGO% east or the maletial Mould make Ns own Wets 60 160160061/60 ttte /0010/101'S 1100111011ly fot NS Oven panatela/ wee. Attachment F

Correspondence RE: Shower Bath Economizer Comments RE: Test Plan Memo RE: Status of Testing Program Memo RE: 5th Coordination Meeting

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia

INDUSTRIAL EXTENSION DIVISION Southwest Georgia Area Office 2402 Dawson Road Suite 4 Albany, Georgia 31707 Area Code 912/439-41U

January 13, 1984

Mr. James A. Hall Electrical Utilization Group Tennessee Valley Authority 1850 Commerce Union Bank Bldg. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401

Dear James:

Pursuant to our telephone conversation today, I have attached my comments concerning the Shower Bath Economizer. Once again, I apologize for the delay in answering your letter.

If you have any questions about these comments, please give me a call at (912)439-4188.

Sincerely,

Edward H. Hardison III, Director Southwest Georgia Area Office

EHH:mgc Enclosure cc: Ed Betheafr"------Newman Ery

10%. Ov ME NT • E DUCAT. ON 01.6'044 I UN, T V TITUT i(304 COMMENTS ON SHOWER BATH ECONOMIZER - TEST PLAN

1. The maximum drain flow rate should be measured before and after installation and before and after removal. This is necessary to insure that if any clogging has occured, it can be determined if it is due to the SBE or some other problem.

2. It appears from the test plan that only one site will record the actual shower water temperature (Ts ). Without going through detailed calculations, this parameter would appear to have a significant effect on savings. To only instrument one site for recording this parameter is to assume the showering habits of one family are typical of most families. If the family of the house selected for instrumentation takes significantly hotter or colder showers than what would be considered "average", this could have an effect on your final calculations. NEWMAN, DAVIS Sc NAGEL

DEC 2 3 1983 Technical 4! r Management Consultants 1113 E. NOKOMIS CIR. • KNOXVILLE. TN 37919

618-522-10M

INCWALS VIN P. NEWMAN, P.1., PRESIDENT NT C. DAVIS. JR., VICE PRESIDENT BERT N. NAGEL. P.E., TREASURER

MEMORANDUM

To: Those Shown Below From: Ery Newman, TVA Consultant Subject: Status of Testing Program-Shower Bath Economizer Project (SBE) Da e: December 20, 1983

/1. Edwin A. Bethea, TUCC Director, Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332

2. Edward H. Hardison, Georgia Tech Engineering Experiment Station, 2402 Dawson Road, Albany, GA 31707

3. James A. Hall, Project Engineer, Electrical Utilization Group, 1850 CUBB-C, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

4. Raymond Hunter, 2112 Ivy St., Chattanooga, TN 374% -

5. Nan Scott, TVA, 1B34 Summer Place Building, Knoxville, TN 37902

6. Edwin Casey, 105 Parkwood Circle, Greenville, TN 37743

7. Ron D. Wilson, Mechanical Engineer, 1850 CUBE-C, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

8. B. C. McCall, Investment Councilor, 625 Hulsey St., Chattanooga, TN 37405

9. Amin M. Kamal, Projects Manager, Electrical Utilization Group, 1850 CUBank, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

Based on telephone discussions with James Hall, Project Manager and others in mid-December 1983, the current status of the SBE Testing Program is summarized as follows:

1. Selection of Field Installations. Thirty-three (33) SBE units distributed by category and location as indicated below will be installed. Agreements with the respective owners or occupants have been signed. Memorandum Page 2

No. of. No. of Category Locations SBE Units Residential 25 25 Fire Halls 4 4 Motels 2 4 31 33

2. Area Distribution of Field Installations.

Number of SBE Units Area Residential Fire Halls Motels Total Chattanooga TN 11 4 4 19 Cleveland TN 10 - - 10 N. Georgia 4 - —- 4 — Total 25 4 4 33

3. Special Instrumentation. Four SBE units (1 in Chattanooga, 2 in Cleveland and 1 in North Georgia) will be equipped.with special instrumentation including BTU meters and data loggers to record performance. This instrumentation has been procured by TVA and is available for installation by the plumbing contractors discussed in item 4.

4. Bids for Plumbing Installations. TVA's Purchasing Division in Chattanooga reports that bids for installation of SBE's and related plumbing changes have been received from one firm in Chattanooga and two firms in North Georgia. No bids were received from firms in the Cleveland area. Bids were closed on November 25, 1983. If there is no further response from the Cleveland area, consideration will be given to adding the Cleveland work to the successful bidder in Chattanooga.

5. Time of Performance.

Based on bids received, time of performance will be relatively short with two weeks considered adequate to cover all SBE field installation work. Assuming awards by January 15, 1984, all field installations should be completed by February 1, 1984.

6. SBE Testing Procedure.

The final draft of the SBE Testing Procedure was sent to ten reviewers for comment on November 28, 1983. It is essential that those comments be received by Mr. James Hall by December 27, 1983. •Memorandum Page 3

7. Questionnaire to be Filled out by Residents.

To fulfill a statutary requirement, request for approval of the questionnaire was sent to the federal Office of Management and Budget in mid- October 1983. It is not expected that completion of this approval process will affect the progress of the SBE testing program.

8. Long Term & Demand Testing Program in Energy Use Test Facility (EUTF) at Chickamauga Dam.

The testing procedure to be conducted in a fully instrumented SBE installation in the EUTF has been completed and sent to EUTF for review on November 29, 1983. Comments were reviewed with EUTF personnel in a meeting on December 15, 1983. Most of the instrumentation is already available for this program. A target date for completion of the installation is February 1, 1984 and the results of Demand testing can be expected in March 1984. Long term testing will continue through 1984.

9. Project Management Team.

a. The SBE Testing Program is under the general direction of Dr. Graham Siegel, Program Manager, Electrical Utilization Group. His Project Manager for this assignment is James Hall of the Energy Demonstration and Technology Division (ED&T) who is directly responsible for developing the program and coordinating the various components and the other organizations involved.

b. Ron Wilson, Mechanical Engineer also of ED&T, is responsible for work at field installations and the coordination of work at the EUTF. Mr. Wilson will receive assistance of an Engineering Aide from the Support Engineering Group of ED&T.

Another review of status of this project will be made on February 1, 1984. In the meantime, it is hoped that all participating groups will expedite actions to assure steady progress.

CC: Dr. Graham Siegel, Program Manager, Electrical Utilization Group 1850 CUBB, TVA - Chattanooga, TN 37401

Dr. David Patterson Program Manager, Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development, TVA 1D57 Old City Hall Building Knoxville, TN 37902 ERVIN F. NEWMAN, P.E. Engineering Consultant 1115 E. NOKOMIS CIR. • KNOXVILLE. TN 37919 615 • 522 • 1015

• STUDIES • . TECHNICAL REPORTS • ANALYSES • GRANT REQUESTS • EVALUATIONS • PROPOSALS October 14, 1983 • -ORGANIZATION • MANAGEMENT

MEMORANDUM

To: Those shown below From: Ery Newman, TVA Consultant Subject: Fifth Coordination Meeting - Shower Bath Economizer Project

On Friday, September 23, 1983, the fifth coordination meeting was held in Chattanooga on the Shower Bath Economizer OBE) project with the following in attendance.

1. Edwin A. Bethea, TUCC, Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332

2. Edward H. Hardison, Georgia Tech Engineering Experiment Station, Albany, GA

3. James A. Hall, Project Engineer, Electrical Utilization Group, 1850 CURB-C, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

4. Raymond Hunter, 2112 Ivy St., Chattanooga, TN 37404

5. Nan Scott, TVA, 1B34 Summer Place Building, Knoxville, TN 37902

6. Edwin Casey, 105 Parkwood Circle, Greenville, TN 37743

7. Ron D. Wilson, Mechanical Engineer, 1850 CURB-C, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

8. B. C. McCall, Investment Councilor, 625 Hulsey St., Chattanooga, TN 37405

9. Amin M. Kamal, Projects Manager, Electrical Utilization Group, 1850 CUBank, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

10. E. F. Newman, Newman, Davis, & Nagel, Knoxville, TN 37919

Mr. James Hall had arranged the agenda for the meeting and served as its chairman. The first session took place at the SBE installation in a TVA model home near Chickamauga Dam where the visitors were given a briefing on the operation, function, and method of installation. It was noted that this SBE used in previous TVA testing was not the later "short length" model and should be replaced when accelerated testing is undertaken at this test site.

The second session was held in a conference room on the 10th Floor of Chestnut Street Tower II.

This session had two functions (1) to brief Messrs. Bethea and Hardison of the Ga. Tech Engineering Experiment Station on the history and present development of the SBE and (2) to brief all present on the status of the Testing and Demonstration Program.

Messrs. Hall, Wilson and Hunter answered questions of technical concern to Mr. Hardison such as the possible clogging of the passageways in the SBE with debris over long periods of use. This is not expected to be a problem but one of the purposes of the accelerated testing program is to demonstrate the capability of the device to resist clogging.

Mr. Hall described the current status of the testing and demonstration program. About 20 of 25 residential sites had been identified but no prospective commercial installations have been located. Delays in this part of the effort are due to personnel changes and lack of finding suitable installations at motels or hotels in the Cleveland, TN, area where the search has been concentrated. Mr. Hall said that he thought contract awards for installation of units could go forward rapidly as soon as all the sites were identified.

Mr. Newman suggested that a target date of October 10, 1983 be assumed for lining up all the sites. Mr. Hall in a subsequent telephone conversation with Mr. Newman thought TVA would go forward immediately with the 20 residential sites already identified and not wait for 5 more residential sites plus the commercials.

Mr. Bethea advised that his organization was quite interested in the possibilities of the SBE but that he believed on the basis of discussion of progress on the testing program that commercialization of SBE was still about two years down the road. He advised further that his organization had viable contacts with firms (including minority firms) that might be interested in pursuing connections with Mr. Hunter. He thought that the job would require the participation of two firms -- one to do the manufacturing and the other to market the product. Mr. Bethea also stated that the Ga. Tech Engineering Experiment Station might also be in position to assist Mr. Hunter in obtaining any necessary design refinements prior to manufacture.

Mr. Newman expressed considerable concern over the delays in getting the testing program under way and suggested that Mr. Hall establish some new target dates for test operations with all participants notified of their responsibilities to meet these schedules. He also suggested in a subsequent telephone conversation that the accelerated testing program which does not depend on site identification get underway on an expedited schedule. Messrs. Hall and Newman recognizing the need to bring all the interested parties together again at an early date suggest Tuesday, November 29, 1983, as the date of the next or 6th Coordination Meeting on SBE. Mr. Newman strongly recommends that representatives of the TVA group at Cleveland responsible for identifying sites be present at this forthcoming meeting.

Those interested please advise Mr. Hall or Mr. Newman if the November 29, date is acceptable.

cc: Dr. Graham Siegel, Program Manager, Electrical Utilization Group 1850 CUBB, TVA Chattanooga, TN 37401 Attachment G

Correspondence to Participants in MED Week Letter to: Calvin Espy Columbus Sanders Sherry Johnson Dr. William Gamble, Jr. Agenda: ATDC Presentation THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

October 14, 1983

Mr. Calvin Espy Hayes Micro Computer Products, Inc. 5923 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard Norcross, Georgia 30092

Dear Mr. Espy:

Frank Brown and I wish to thank you very much for taking the time to come to the campus to participate in the Minority Business Enterprise Development Week. From all indications, the students enjoyed the exchange of ideas, and we hope it began a thinking process about alternatives for employment.

Again thank you very much.

Sincerely,

--04-LAJ`:— agr------.„ Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

Frank B. Brown Research Associate & RAP Director

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

October 14, 1983

Mr. Columbus Sanders Consolidated Industries, Inc. 4410-C Evangel Circle Huntsville, Alabama 35805

Dear Mr. Sanders:

Again thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

Frank B. Brown Research Associate & RAP Director

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

October 14, 1983

Miss Sherry Johnson, President Georgia Tech Society of Black Engineers Georgia Institute of Technology P.O. Box 30435 Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Dear Miss Johnson:

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center and the Rural Assistance Program Directors thank you very much for your Society's efforts and involvement in making the Minority Enterprise Development Week activities a success. We deeply appreciate the interest shown by your members in attendance. Their actions made our guest speakers feel very welcome.

Should you feel that our programs can be of service, please do not hesitate to contact either of us at extension 3833.

Sincerely,

E--..u,k1-1-• Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

Frank B. Brown Research Associate & RAP Director

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

October 14, 1983

Dr. William J. Gamble, Jr. Director Office of Minority Education Development Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Dear Bill:

Thank you very much for your assistance with helping the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center and the Rural Assistance Program achieve its objectives during the National Minority Enterprise Development Week.

Should you need the assistance of either of our programs, please feel free to contact us. Both Directors can be reached at extention 3833.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

Frank B. Brown Research Associate & RAP Director

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency AGENDA:

MINORITY ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT WEEK ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CENTER

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1983 3 P.M., ROOM 040 O'KEEFE BUILDING GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

3:00 p.m. Welcome and Overview of ATDC Jerry L. Birchfield, Director

Jerry L. Birchfield has served as director of the ATDC since July of 1982. An electrical engineer by education, he has served the Georgia Institute of Technology since 1967. Prior to joining ATDC, he directed Tech's Technology Applications Lab. 3:15 p.m. Technology-Based Business Development Ken Perry, Research Engineer, Georgia Institute of Technology

Ken Perry is a research engineer and president of Microtech Industries, Ltd. He holds masters and doctorate degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering. His area of specific interest is medical electronics.

3:30 p.m. Funding Sources for Small Businesses Ronald W. White, consultant to ATDC and president, Ronald W. White, Incorporated/Investors Equity, Inc.

Ronald W. White has extensive experience with venture capital in the technology area, including monitoring of several companies as manager of a venture capital SBIC. An electrical engineer with an MBA from Harvard, he has experience with founding and managing small businesses. AGENDA, Continued

3:45 p.m. One Company's Experience with ATDC Juan Silva, Farescan, Inc. Juan Silva is co-owner of Farescan, Inc., an ATDC member company that has developed an automatic electronic system designed to aid corporate travel departments by giving them access to unbiased, published and unpublished airline fare information. 4:00 p.m. Questions and Follow-Up

THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CENTER

The Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC) was formed in 1980 to serve as a catalyst for high technology growth in Georgia. The Center attempts to bridge the gap between high technology industries and Georgia's resources, offering information about available state resources, access to University System engineers, scientists and research facilities, and office space on the Georgia Tech campus. This "incubator" space is available to start-up companies as well as to research and development or new product development groups of established high technology companies.

100

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF 97 TECHNOLOGY

96 arking

BUILDING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CENTER 894-3575

t-,77 76 \

1, " .... 4TH IRE ET\ ,k- ,,,\ Cf)Ss\

C.Cjr \ 46. NORTH

. --411 . --- ' ',..-14. ■ .s -z...—_,- —.._. - . _____, \ , ,______3WD STREET ,_ p4 . t25

II • iL) 71.1Z ' ':e;Y\ f;.•

- ,

'''''",..",::::-.. --• I —7,::: ` .:-;'1 \

UNCLE. H E iN1E r '77.- ,\ sr.* \\\

• '%r-- :

'••V - ' AVENUE VV\-- Attachment H

Seminar Agenda for Resources Available for Medical Device Development and FDA Approval Procedures RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR MEDICAL DEVICE DEVELOPMENT and

FDA APPROVAL PROCEDURES NOVEMBER 22, 1983

GEORGIA TECH, BAKER BLDG., ATLANTA, GEORGIA SPONSORS: ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CENTER, BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION, GEORGIA TECH, U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

9:00 Welcome

9:05 FDA Procedures for Investigational Device Tim Ulatowski, FDA, Exemption and Premarket Approval National Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Rockville, MD 10:00 Medical Device Engineering Evaluations Ed Wayman, FDA, Winchester Engineering and Analytical Laboratory Winchester, MA 11:00 Industry's Experience with the FDA, and Tim Cowart, Manager, the Pre-Market Development Process Corporate Regulatory Affairs, Healthdyne, Inc. 12:00 Lunch Marietta, GA 1:00 Panel Discussion: Research Resources in Jim Toler, Division Georgia Head, Biomedical Research, Georgia Tech

Bill Haygood, Clinical Engineer, Medical Engineering, Emory Univ. CARL -.(04614. Fairhurst, Coordinator, Dental Materials, Medical College of Georgia 3:30 The Advanced Technology Development Center Jerry Birchfield, Director

4:00 Adjourn

MODERATORS: Morning - Tim Wells, FDA Small Business Representative, Region IV, Atlanta

Afternoon - Jim Toler, Division Head, Biomedical Research, Georgia Tech Attachment I

Proposals submitted to TUCC From ECSL/Bio Medical Research Division For Commercialization of Federally Developed, Biomedically-Applicable Technologies by Minority-Owned Small Businesses ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Manta, Georgia 30332 September 19, 1983

MEMORANDUM

TO: Ed Bethea, Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center

FROM: Mike Studwell, ECSL/BRD

SUBJECT: Proposal No. EC-BR-1405, "Commercialization of Federally- Developed, Biomedically-Applicable Technologies by Minority-Owned Small Businesses"

The Biomedical Research Division is keenly interested in the mission of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) and desires to propose an initial program to support this mission. The proposed program will significantly support the TUCC mission by providing an informed interface between minority-owned small businesses, rapidly-expanding opportunities in the biomedical area, and federal laboratories where technology potentially relevant to the biomedical area is developed. In summary form, the program described below proposes to accomplish the following tasks:

Task 1. Update knowledge of biomedical technologies and innovations needed in hospitals and clinics by interfacing with personnel in local medical facilities,

Task 2. Obtain and review descriptions of technological developments in federal laboratories with medically-related responsibilities,

Task 3. Identify federally-developed technologies suitable for transfer to hospitals and clinics by minority-owned small businesses,

Task 4. Co-host with TUCC a workshop that presents to minority-owned small businesses the various types of technical assistance available to them from both the federal government and Georgia Tech, and

Task 5. Work with TUCC to identify minority-owned small businesses to which individual technologies can be transferred.

These tasks are highly inter-related and, in many cases, individual activities within the tasks will be accomplished concurrently.

' Under Task 1, personnel from the Biomedical Research Division will confer with persons in area hospitals and clinics for the purpose of familar- izing themselves with electrical/electronic equipment, instrumentation, devices, systems, etc. (1) currently in use and (2) needed but not currently available. Accomplishment of this task will be substantially aided by the fact that the proposed Project Director (Mr. Mike Studwell) was, until

AN EQUAL EMPLOrnA NT E DUCA T.ON Ot ,■-.ON't UNIT INSTIruT,ON MEMORANDUM September 19, 1983 Page Two recently, employed in the Medical Engineering Department of the Emory University Hospital; therefore, considerable knowledge of biomedical equipment, instrumentation, devices, systems, etc. already exists. At the conclusion of this task, an updated knowledge of biomedical technologies in use and needed will be available for use in subsequent tasks.

The primary efforts under Task 2 will be concerned with obtaining and reviewing summary descriptions of technological developments in federal organizations such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), medical research and development entities within the Department of Defense, etc. These summary descriptions will be obtained through TUCC. The reviews will focus on electrical/electronic design aspects of technologies developed for non-medical purposes and the possibility of transferring these designs into the biomedical area. When this task is concluded, technologies developed in federal laboratories and suitable, from an engineering point-of-view, for transfer to the biomedical area will have been noted.

In Task 3, the technologies noted during Task 2 will be assessed in terms of their potential for commercialization by a minority-owned small business. Commercialization, as it is of interest to this task, includes manufacturing, sales, service, advertising, etc. The assessment made during this task will define all efforts necessary to commercialize a given technology, and whether these efforts can be effectively managed, totally or partially, by a small business. Identification of specific technologies appropriate for transfer to the biomedical area via small businesses will have been made at the conclusion of this task.

Task 4 is extremely important in that it will establish a communications link between TUCC and minority-owned small businesses interested in biomedically-related technologies. This link will result from a one-day workshop hosted jointly by TUCC and the Biomedical Research Division. The workshop will have two sessions: (1) formal presentations identifying administrative and technical assistance available to minority-owned small businesses through TUCC and the various research groups within Georgia Tech and (2) informal conferences with individual attendees to privately discuss business opportunities, interests, markets, capabilities, etc. The formal presentations will include (1) a discussion of TUCC program goals and areas of responsibility as they relate to commericialization of technologies transferred from federal organizations and (2) a description of biomedical research capabilities within Georgia Tech that might be useful to small businesses undertaking the transfer of a given technology into a marketable end product. Both sessions will be beneficial in establishing channels of communications and interaction.

In the final task (Task 5), assistance will be provided to TUCC in matching minority-owned small businesses with identified biomedically- applicable technologies that have significant potential for commercialization. This task therefore brings together the results of Tasks 1-3 with the results of Task 4 in a way such that minority-owned small businesses, Georgia Tech, and consumers all benefit from the transfer and MEMORANDUM September 19, 1983 Page Three commercialization of biomedically-applicable technology developed in federal laboratories.

To accomplish the above tasks, it is proposed that 3.5 person-months of professional effort be expended over a four-month time period. A budget estimate for this level of professional effort plus associated costs is attached. It is anticipated that a close working relationship will be maintained with TUCC, and that TUCC will obtain the required summary descriptions of technology from appropriate federal laboratories. Efforts under this program will be reported monthly to TUCC by means of progress letters submitted in letter format. It is recognized a priori that there can be no guarantee that reviews of summary descriptions will yield technologies suitable for commercialization by a minority-owned small business; however, this proposal is submitted in the anticipation that such technologies will be identified.

If questions arise regarding either the proposed tasks or the budget estimate, please don't hesitate to call me (X3551) or Jim Toler (X3964). In the meantime, we hope for an opportunity to work with you, TUCC, and those minority-owned small businesses interested in biomedical technologies. BUDGET ESTIMATE

Proposal No. EC-BR-1405

Salaries and Wages 4.0 Months

Principal Research Engineer (J. C. Toler) $2,627 $12,355 0.5 person-months @ avg. $5,254/mo.

Research Engineer II (M. L. Studwell) $9,579 3.0 person-months @ avg. $3,193/mo.

Secretary/Clerical $ 149 0.1 person-months @ avg. $1,494/mo.

Fringe Benefits $ 2,903

23.5 percent of Salaries and Wages 0.235 ($12,355) =

Material and Supplies $ 350

Literature searches on target technologies $ 90 u^rkshop costs (materials for presentation and distribution, refreshments, etc.) $ 200 Reproduction charges $ 60

MODIFIED TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (MTDC) $15,608

Overhead $ 7,710

49.4 percent of MTDC 0.494 ($15,358) =

TOTAL COST (4 MONTHS) $23,318

Georgia Institute of Technology ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30332

November 17, 1983 MEMORANDUM

TO: Ed Bethea, TUCC

FROM: Mike Studwell, ECSL/BRD

SUBJECT: Proposal No. EC-BR-1405, "Technology Transfer Activities for Biomedical Innovations to Minority-Owned Small Businesses"

As an alternative to the program we described in a previous memo, I would like to propose a more limited scale effort to assist in the accomplishment of TUCC objectives. I propose that a pilot program be started by: selection of innovations from Walter Reed sources and other sources which might be found later, evaluation of several of the more promising ideas in this selection, and provision of assistance for assembling a commercialization package and technical support for the small business. The whole effort will be directed toward the goal of demonstrating the feasibility of getting a biomedical product to the marketplace by this approach.

To expedite this transfer process, I intend to concentrate on ideas for which there is a recognized need in the biomedical field, for example, innovations that improve the ability to make a measurement which is already clinically useful or provide an alternate means of accomplishing a current objective. I expect to confer with colleagues in area hospitals and other organizations as necessary to evaluate the clinical demand for a selected innovation. The evaluation of ideas will be based on their effectiveness compared to current methods and an analysis of the practicality of implementation. Continued efforts will address problems discovered in the evaluation and situations peculiar to the specific small business.

I have estimated that I can accomplish these tasks at a level of about 1- 1/2 person-months spent over a 4 month period. There is a budget estimate attached. Before we can officially begin this work however, the stipulation for cost sharing 20% of the budget will have to be discussed and approved by my Lab Director Fred Cain.

I am looking forward to the opportunity of working with you and will be glad to further discuss this effort.

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION EC-BR-1405 COST ESTIHATE

Personnel Services $4,422

Principal Research Engineer $ 790 0.15 person-months @ $5,267/mo.

Research Engineer II $3,483 1.0 person-months @ $3,483/mo.

Secretarial/Clerical $ 149 0.1 person-months @ $1,494/mo.

Fringe Benefits $1,039 @ 23.5% of personal services

Materials and Supplies $ 60 Miscellaneous

TOTAL MODIFIED DIRECT COSTS $5,521

Overhead $2,854 51.4% of MTDC

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $8,375 Attachment J

Cover Letter and FLC Fall Meeting's Agenda OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY OPERATED BY UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION NUCLEAR DIVISION

POST OFFICE BOX X OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 37830

September 16, 1983

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Dear Ed:

Enclosed is a copy of the Tentative Agenda for the Fall FLC meeting that will be held on November 15-17, 1983.

Please update me on how the arrangements are proceeding for your session.

Sincerely,

'Rod/Jared Research Applications Officer

DJ:jj

Enclosure AGENDA (continued)

10:30 a.m. SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS (Chairman, Morgan Miles, University of Mississippi) This session will look at how selected southeastern SBDCs work. Discussion will emphasize the needs of clients served by SBDCs. 12:30 p.m. LUNCH 2:00 p.m. INNOVATION GROUPS, BROKER ORGANI- ZATIONS, AND TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIAL- IZATION CENTERS (Chairman, Ed Bethea, TUCC, Georgia Institute of Technology) Individual brokers will describe how their organizations function, who their customers are, and what special needs may be served by attending organizations. 4:00 p.m. DISCUSSION BREAK 4:30 p.m. BRIDGING THE GAP— ARRANGEMENTS THAT WORK (Chairman, Gerry Richards, ORTA, LLNL) This session will highlight working arrangements such as R&D Limited Partnerships, SBIR Grants, and Venture Capital which have been used successfully to increase interactions between federal laboratories and industry, universities, and state and local governments. 5:30 p.m. ADJOURN 6:30 p.m. CONFERENCE PARTICIPANT'S DINNER

Thursday, November 17 7:00 a.m. TECHNICAL VOLUNTEER BREAKFAST— Roundtable, Broadwater Dining Room 8:30 a.m. ARRANGEMENTS THAT WORK (continued) 10:00 a.m. DISCUSSION BREAK 10:30 a.m. FORMING A NETWORK (Chairman, Don Jared, ORTA, ORNL) 11:30 a.m. BUSINESS LUNCH, Regional Meetings HOST LABORATORY Naval Oceanographic Office SUPPORT LABORATORIES CONFERENCE AGENDA 18 FLC member laboratories in Southeast Monday, November 14 OBJECTIVES To involve universities, Small Business Develop- 9:00 a.m. FLC Executive Committee Meeting 12:30 p.m. LUNCH: Governor William F. Winter of Mississippi ment Centers, innovation groups, state and F LC Advisory Committee Meeting will discuss new initiatives instituted by Mississippi local personnel, and private industry in discus- 1:00 p.m. NEW FLC MEMBER/ATTENDEE ORIENTATION to encourage industrial development through sions about technology transfer and to acquaint educational initiatives. 5:00 p.m. ADJOURN them with the FLC. 2:00 p.m. UNIVERSITIES AND THE FLC (Chairman, Tina 6:00-9:00 p.m. REGISTRATION To provide these organizations, and FLC lab- McKinley, Oak Ridge Associated Universities) oratories, with an opportunity to share infor- Representatives from several southeastern universities mation on current efforts and capabilities in Tuesday, November 15 will identify ways in which interactions between technology development and applications. 7:00 a.m. TECHNICAL VOLUNTEER BREAKFAST— universities and federal laboratories can be increased. To discuss the organizational, financial, and Roundtable, Broadwater Dining Room The panel will emphasize the laboratory resources legal aspects of working arrangements such as 8:00 a.m. REGISTRATION and series likely to be most useful to universities and R&D Limited Partnerships, SBIR Grants, and will explore possible roles universities might play in Venture Capital. 8:30 a.m. WELCOME assisting laboratories to meet federal technology , PARTICIPANTS Clay Griffith (F LC Conference Host) transfer objectives. Technology Transfer Coordinator FLC member laboratory representatives, univer- 4:00 p.m. INTERACTION SESSION sity research personnel, SBDC staff, innovation Naval Oceanographic Office group members, others interested in increasing Captain Johnny Sears 4:20 p.m. LABORATORY PRESENTATIONS interaction between federal labs and technology Commanding Officer Southeastern FLC labs will discuss examples of users. Naval Oceanographic Office interactions with broker organizations and how to facilitate effective interactions with individual CONFERENCE STRUCTURE 9:00 a.m. THE FLC AND HOW IT WORKS laboratories. They will also describe some of the Formal panel presentations from FLC members Gene Stark, LANL, the FLC Chairman, will briefly and technology user and broker organizations. services and assistance available through their describe the organizational structure of the FLC. There will also be opportunities for informal laboratories. With help from other FLC members you will learn interaction and idea exchange. 5:20 p.m. POSTER SESSION & MIXER: Selected labs and how to make the FLC work for you and how to universities will present posters and other audio- HIGHLIGHTS avoid some of the problems which arise in working visuals to attendees. Bridging the Gap: Perspectives from universities, with the bureaucracy. Small Business Development Centers, innova- 10:00 a.m. INTERACTION SESSION tion groups, state and local personnel, and FLC members on how to increase transfer activities. 10:30 a.m. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC Wednesday, November 16 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS (Chairman, Bob Poster Sessions: Graphic descriptions of the 7:00 a.m. TECHNICAL VOLUNTEERS BREAKFAST— Brandon, ORTA, Tyndall AFB, Florida) expertise and technical competency areas of Roundtable, Broadwater Dining Room selected FLC laboratories, southeastern univer- Southeastern States Economic Development staffs 8:30 a.m. FLC BUSINESS MEETING sities and broker organizations. will describe some of their activities that are FLC Chairman Gene Stark, LANL Formal and Informal Interaction Sessions: working well, what resources they have found that Guests are invited to attend. Opportunities have been scheduled, throughout have been particularly helpful, and what problems the Conference, for participants to exchange they have that might be solved by a networking 10:00 a.m. DISCUSSION BREAK ideas and experiences, approach to these problems. (continued ► Attachment K

Letter Inviting TUCC's Director To Attend the Meeting RE: Improving the Quality of Life for Older Americans CARBIDE RETIREE SERVICE CORPS, INC.

AN ORGANIZATION OF RETIRED UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION EMPLOYEES

P. 0. Box 831, Hackensack, N.J. 07602 DIRECTORS OFFICERS W. C. MORRO, JR., Chairman W C. MORRO. JR., President E. DOMOKOS A. A. BOEHM, Vice President H. R. GUEST R DILLON, Vice President F. E KING M. R. HATFIELD. Vice President W W. PALMOUIST M. A. McCAR1HY, Secretary S. E. PETRONACK F. E SCHNEIDER, Treasurer C. C. REANDEAU F. L SHANKLIN L SHECHTER M. D. VAN ARTSDALE November 23, 1983

Mr. Edwin Bethea Technology Utilization & Commercialization Ctr. Engineering Experimental Station Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332

Dear Mr. Bethea:

You are invited to a meeting, Improving the Quality of Life for Older Americans, at 11:00 A.M. on December 15th at the South Carolina Education Association Building, Columbia, South Carolina.

Dr. Lennie-Marie Tolliver, U.S. Commissioner on Aging, will be the principal speaker at the meeting, jointly sponsored by the Carbide Retiree Service Corps (CRSC) and the South Carolina Commission on Aging.

As a result of CRSC's work with the South Carolina Aging Network, improved and safer access to bathtubs was identified as a high-priority need of the aging population. It was determined through the U.S. Administration on Aging that the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin was working on the design of an entire bathroom with innovative fixtures to serve the needs and limitations of older and handicapped people. The model which will be displayed was developed by the University as the first step in their program.

The effective working relationship developing between agencies of the federal and state governments, academia and the private sector will be discussed.

Coffee and rolls will be served starting at 9:30 A.M. Please come early to inspect the model and visit with others who are involved with the important responsibility of serving older Americans. Attached is a map showing directions to the South Carolina Education kssociation Building. I look forward to seeing you December 15th.

Sincerely yours,

a-rt./1J W.C. Morro, Jr. President

WCM:jeh att. Attachment L

Memorandum RE: Distinguished Alumni of Knoxville College ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

November 11, 1983

MEMORANDUM -1'444g, 4 /

TO: Ed Bethea Research Scientist II •

FROM: David Clifton, Jr. 0/ Director, Economic evelopment Laboratory

SUBJECT: Distinguished Alumni of Knoxville College

I would like to offer my personal congratulations on your being chosen one of the . Distinguished Alumni of Knoxville College by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.

This award is well deserved as the attached letter makes clear. It recognizes your excellent assistance to minority and disadvantaged groups, and your outstanding work in contributing to the economic development of the mid-Atlantic region. Such an award reflects well not only on the Economic Development Laboratory, the Engineering Experiment Station, but on the, Georgia Institute of Technology as a whole.

Again, accept my congratulations on behalf of the entire Economic Development Laboratory for your fine achievement. I wish you continued success in all your endeavors. cc: D.J. Grace H.G. Dean R.L. Yobs ✓ H.S. Taylor

Attachment

AN EOUAL EMPLOYMENT EOUCATiON OPPOPTuNt TY INST1TuTION Attachment M

Memorandum RE: TUCC Resource/Advisory Council Meeting ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332 INEERING EXTENSION LABORATORY West Georgia Area Office 201 Tanner Street P.O. Box 676 Carrollton, Georgia 30117 Area Code 404/834-1480

December 1, 1983

TO: Ed Bethea

FROM: Harris Johnson

SUBJECT: TUCC Meeting

It seems to me that one thing we could do to improve our operations is to "model" successful minority manufacturing firms for others to follow:

- Identify successful Georgia minority manufacturers.

- Throw out those firms who have some unusual advantage; that is, those firms who exist because they got a grant or something to start-up or who run as a not for profit assistance group.

- See if we can discover why the firm is successful and transfer that info. to other minority firms.

Indeed, minority firms do have obstacles that other firms do not. For example, there is some lack of capital, some prejudice and some "lack of public confidence".

- The best things the advisory council can really do, in addition helping offer a market for minority products which in my mind is limited because the things they want minority manufacturers to furnish, just are not going to happen soon. For instance, Westinghouse asked us for a minority wire manufacturer. Just how is any other firm, much less one with a lack of vast capital, going to compete with established manufacturers like Southwire? The same thing exists with GE. Their request for a minority castings plant would require intense capital investment. So just what can the advisory council do?--Just what some other programs have already started. For instance, Terry Manufacturing wants technical assistance in their operation. Could Sears provide one of their best warehouse managers for a day or three to see if Mr. Terry could store/move material better? What about SA? Could they advise Consolidated Industries on proceeding or not with the product design?

Let's address the role Georgia Tech people play. Field office people handle a broad range of subjects. They are not experts in every area. We can identify the area of need and often the technology of solution. We can even advise on the advancing technology, but we would not be in as stron a position as the Sears

AN EQUAL. EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION Ed Bethea Page 2 December 1, 1983 person would who: (1) is good, (2) does it 40 hours a week and, (3) that is his only interest.

What about campus groups? Here again the Materials Handling people are busy with other things; must concentrate on advancing technology and do not physically practice the technology 40 hours per week.

I maintain taht our true role is one of technology and methods transfer, not as definers of new approaches. If we act as agents or catalysts to assist transfer, that is our most effective role. Attachment N

Sample of Letter To Inviting Minority Firms to Participate in TUCC's Resource/Advisory Council Meeting THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of int" University System of Georgia Manta. Georgia 30332

October 20, 1983

Mr. Columbus Sanders, President Consolidated Industries Incorporated 4410-C Evangel Circle Huntsville, Alabama 35805

Dear Mr. Sanders:

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) would like to invite your firm to participate in its annual Resource/Advisory Council Meeting, which will be held November 29, 1983 at the Atlanta Hilton Hotel. This meeting is an annual one-day workshop/seminar designed to discuss plans developed by TUCC for its operating program for the upcoming grant year.

Generally, TUCC presents strategies and implementation plans for using the resources of its Resource/Advisory Council and the Engineering Experiment Station to work with minority-owned enterprises that have the desire, the capability, and the willingness to take advantage of existing and developing opportunities in the private and public sectors of the economy.

This year, we would like to have participation from clients and former clients to gather opinions and prepare plans on how best to utilize the business contacts of TUCC's Resource/Advisory group and the supportive services of Georgia Tech's Engineering Experiment Station to: 1) assist minority-owned firms with utilizing and commercializing technologies; and 2) help these firms become more productive and profitable. TUCC's Resource/Advisory Council, which is composed of a select group of decision-making representatives from major corporations and government agencies, has agreed to guide and support the efforts of the center and its clients.

It is anticipated that the strategies and plans that evolve from the discussions will be implemented, in part, and in some instances in total, during this grant year, which began August 1983 and will end July 1984. TUCC hopes that the minority-owned firms that participate in the workshop/seminar will be involved in implementing these plans and will also become ongoing Resource/Advisory Council Members.

Please find enclosed a pre-registration form and a list of the TUCC Resource/Advisory Council Members, most of whom have regularly attended the annual workshop/seminar.

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency TUCC sincerely hopes you will be able to attend and contribute to the development of this year's plans, particularly because this is the first year TUCC has included minority-owned firms in this important meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions (404) 894-3833. I look forward to seeing you in November. Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate 43c TUCC Director

Enclosure Attachment 0

Summary Report - TUCC Annual Resource/ Advisory Council Workshop/Seminar

Agenda - TUCC Annual Resource/Advisory Council Workshop/Seminar

Sample Letter of Thanks for Attendee Participation SUMMARY REPORT

TUCC ANNUAL RESOURCE/ADVISORY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/SEMINAR

November 29, 1983

The Annual Resource/Advisory Council Workshop/Seminar was held at the Atlanta Hilton Hotel, November 29,1983. The one-day meeting was divided into two segments, a morning session and an afternoon session.

The morning segment informed the attendees of the center's accomplishments during the last grant year; compared its accomplishments with projected goals; and described the resources that are available within the Engineering Experiment Station and the University's academic system.

TUCC's aim was to acquaint the group, many of whom were attending the seminar workshop for the first time, with the resources at Georgia Tech and explain how TUCC uses them to assist clients and implement the center's program. Staff from various laboratories within the Engineering Experiment Station who have worked with TUCC's clients (TUCC's supportive staff) discussed their roles and described how their resources are used to:

Evaluate the technical and engineering soundness of technologies and determine their commercial potential.

• Identify new technologies and products with commercial potential.

• Assist TUCC clients with product development, engineering modifications and commercialization, and technology utilization and commercialization.

▪ Identify minority-owned firms that have existing or potential capabilities to acquire products and technologies.

Locate investment capital, markets, and distribution channels. Near the close of the morning's session, the Center director informed the group that he hoped the information from the presentation would enable them to think of ways to improve the center's efforts to assist clients interested in utilizing and commercializing products and technologies. The director described a possible situation that involved the resources of both the Resource/Advisory Council and Georgia Tech. The group was asked to discuss its potential over the TUCC hosted luncheon. Additionally, the Resource/Advisory Council members were encouraged to get acquainted with the minority-owned firms present.

Afternoon Session At the beginning of the afternoon session, the Center's director continued the seminar/workshop by referring to the morning session's agenda, and indicated that, despite the Center's resources and matching capabilities, he was still dissatisfied with its efforts to assist minority-owned firms with acquiring new product/technologies and overcoming commercialization problems.

The director further explained that TUCC must know that its clients, minority-owned firms will continue to exist and keep themselves in a stable position before TUCC and the client go through the exhaustive process of identifying new products and technologies that can be acquired or produced.

The afternoon workshop discussion thus focused on how TUCC could channel additional resources to further address the above problem. Unless this area can be addressed, the other problems, such as identifying adequate capital for expansion, new product acquisition, market penetration, and improving the public/private sector's confidence level in minority-owned firms' capability are irrelevant. One of the Center's Resource Advisory Council members_ restated the problem more specifically: "How can the Resource/Advisory Council members help entreprenuers produce products better and faster?" The group discussed this issue at length. We considered whether the Center would work with fledging or successful firms.

TUCC's response: The Center will work with firms that have a successful track record, although some of these companies may be considered fledging.

2 Secondly, the Resource/Advisory Council asked if the Center is focusing on manufacturing or service firms.

TUCC's response: Primarily manufacturing. It was emphasized that the reasons for inviting several TUCC program participants was to have Resource/Advisory Council members meet the type of client TUCC plans to work with this grant year and to get feedback from both groups regarding the center's proposed program direction.

One Resource/Advisory Council member pointed out that most U.S. firms are getting their manufacturing done off shore, in foreign countries. This being the case, TUCC was asked why it is emphasizing manufacturing rather than service industries.

TUCC's response: In certain industries, minority-owned manufacturing firms can compete more successfully because they are small, mostly non-union and capable of servicing or supplying a certain market. Additionally, TUCC can identify and assist minority-owned firms to penetrate the developing specialty markets such as the elderly and the handicapped. TUCC can also help them identify other areas where the margin of profit is too small for the large and middle-size corporations. Further, TUCC believes its resources can be instrumental in getting these products to the market place through existing distribution lines and outlets. Minority-owned firms could perform specialized manufacturing tasks for industries with generic needs. Moreover, these manufacturing firms may be able to employ local residents and thereby aid the local economy.

Conclusions: Although major corporations try to keep their minority suppliers healthy, TUCC can enhance these efforts. Further, the firms that need assistance are those seeking entry. TUCC can identify firms with performance records and determine their potential for success.

Another Resource/Advisory member commented: "If TUCC's aim is to bring more minority businesses into the main stream, then TUCC must focus on those that will survive over a period of time, versus those that deal with "fad products." Approaches to achieve this goal can be developed with the cooperation of TUCC and the Resource/Advisory Council. Therefore, TUCC must now decide on the population it wants to serve. 3 Recommendations: The recommendations of this year's Resource/Advisory Council meeting and those from last year are included because, in many instances, they overlap and are relative to the program's overall objectives.

The current method for identifying and matching minority-owned firms with council members works; however, improvements can be made by incorporating and interfacing the following:

- TUCC must identify specific needs and requirements of Resource/Advisory Council firms and the potentials and capabilities of client firms so a better match can be made.

Develop a strategy detailing ways for a minority firm to build or expand the company. In many instances, a plan is necessary before an advisory council member can become involved with commercialization or matching a new technology.

• TUCC should marshal, monitor, and limit the focus of advice to minority firms. If a firm has requested managerial and technical assistance from TUCC, there must be a separation of the two needs before presenting the firm to an Advisory Council member for assistance. Once this step has been completed, TUCC should look at what mode of assistance would be appropriate for an Advisory Council member to perform.

TUCC's request for assistance from the Resource/Advisory Council should be more specific. Each member of the Council should not get involved in defining the business direction of a firm, but should focus attention on the specific resource they have to offer.

▪ TUCC should serve as a link between minority firms and specific Advisory Council members. In order to accomplish this effectively, a relationship has to be established between the firm and the Advisory Council member.

4 Try to get minority-owned firms into general contracting situations with Resource/Advisory Council member firms rather than sub-contracting relationships.

The Resource/Advisory Council members should continue to use TUCC as a clearinghouse resource for matching minority-owned firms with its needs.

TUCC, Advisory Council members, and participating minority firms should meet more than once a year. Participating firms need to know the Advisory Council members who are providing assistance and vice-versa. This cannot be accomplished over the telephone. In addition, it is not realistic to expect a fast turn-around when meeting with Advisory Council members.

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION a( COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ANNUAL RESOURCE/ADVISORY COUNCIL WORKSHOP

ATLANTA HILTON HOTEL ATLANTA, GEORGIA

NOVEMBER 29, 1983

Tuesday, November 29, 1983 •

8:15 Registration

8:45 Opening Remarks Edwin A. Bethea, Director Technology Utilization & Commercialization Center Engineering Experiment Station

Welcome Dr. David S. Clifton, Jr., Director Economic Development Laboratory Engineering Experiment Station

9:00 Brief Description of TUCC's and Its Objective Edwin A. Bethea

9:10 Review of the Technology Utilization & Commercialization Center's Program Activities and Accomplishments During 1982-83 Edwin A. Bethea

Introduction of New Resource/Advisory Council Members and Participating Minority Firms Edwin A. Bethea

9:25 Seminar/Workshop Objectives Edwin A. Bethea

9:35 Presentation of TUCC's 1983-84 Program Plans and Supportive Resources Within EES to be Utilized to Impliment Its Program Plans Resource Panel Presentation Hugh Denny Principle Research Engineer Electronics & Computer Science Laboratory Dr. Wallace Shakun Senior Research Engineer Energy & Material Science Laboratory James Toler Principal Research Engineer Bio System Division Electronics & Computer Science Laboratory Grant Curtis Senior Research Engineer Technology Applications Laboratory Harris Johnson Research Technologist 11 Economic Development Laboratory Industrial Extension Division Frank Brown Research Associate 11 Rural Assistance Program Economic Development Laboratory

10:50 BREAK 11:05 Description of Proposed Involvement and Activities from the Resource/Advisory Council Members with TUCC and Its Client Referral of Application Identification of Industry Needs Assistance with Commercialization of New Products Identification of New Clients Stabilization of TUCC Clients with Expansion Potentials

11:25 Description of Workshop Format

Edwin A. Bethea

11:45 BREAK

12 noon LUNCH

1:15 Workshop Session Begins Discussion Leader - Edwin A. Bethea

Focus:

Involvement of Resource/Advisory Council Members and Their Resources for Identifying Matching Technology and Industry Needs to TUCC Clients with the Capability of Commercializing and Utilizing Technology for Growth and Expansion

3:25 BREAK

3:45 Workshop Wrap-Up and Proposed Follow-up Action by TUCC and the Resource Council Edwin A. Bethea and Workshop Reporters

4:15 Remarks Carlton Eccles, Acting Director Atlanta Regional Office Minority Business Development Agency David S. Clifton, Jr., Director Economic Development Laboratory Engineering Experiment Station Rudy L. Yobs, Associate Director Engineering Experiment Station Edwin A. Bethea, Director Technology Utilization & Commercialization Center

4:45 Announcements

5:00 Adjournment THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

January 19, 1984

Mr. Columbus Sanders, President Consolidated Industries Incorporated 4410-C Evangel Circle Huntsville, Alabama 35805

Dear Mr. Sanders:

Thank you for your participation in this year's Resource/Advisory Council meeting. Enclosed is a summary of the Resource/Advisory Council meeting held November 29, 1984 in Atlanta, Georgia. This year's meeting focused on our continuing effort to develop a systematic approach for identifying and matching minority-owned firms with technologies that can be either commercialized or used to improve their productivity. We stressed the need for examining ways of overcoming problems TUCC has encountered and identifying useable approaches to technology transfer and commercialization for minority-owned firms.

For the past year and a half, TUCC has been investigating several methods. This year, we plan to take the best results of all our efforts and combine them with the council's recommendations from the past two meetings to develop what is expected to become a synergistic model for this center.

It is anticipated that I will be meeting with various Resource/Advisory Council members individually to discuss specifics regarding the use of your resources and to identify needs within your corporation (organization) that our clients can fulfill. It is our intention to formulate an approach that will be beneficial to all participants and simultaneously meet the center's objective. In February 1984 we will begin scheduling meetings with various council members and a select group of minority-owned firms.

I hope that your holidays were enjoyable and that this year will be very profitable.

Sincerely, (2LT-c----. Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency QUARTERLY REPORT Project A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

By Edwin A. Bethea, Project Director Project Advisory Team Fred Cain Davis S. Clifton, Jr. Hans 0. Spauschus Hardy S. Taylor

Under Grant #98-10-80018-01

30 March 1984

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY A Unit of the University System of Georgia Engineering Experiment Station Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Quarterly Report January, February, and March 1984 Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER QUARTERLY REPORT

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist Project Director

Staff Advisory Team

Fred L. Cain Director Electronics and Computer Systems Laboratory

David S. Clifton, Jr. Director Economic Development Laboratory

Hans 0. Spauschus Director Energy & Materials Science Laboratory

Hardy S. Taylor Associate Director Economic Development Laboratory

This material is the result of tax-supported research and as such is not copyrightable. It may be freely reprinted with the customary crediting of the source.

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Engineering Experiment Station Economic Development Laboratory Atlanta, Georgia 30332

March 1984 Quarterly Report January, February, and March 1984 Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-3036-000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER 3

Evaluation - Product Development and Commercialization Ideas 3

Product/Venture Ideas 4

Resource Searches and Technology Identifications for Minority Firms and Entrepreneurs 8

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 9

TUCC Administrative Activities 9

Support Staff Activities 10

TUCC Participating Firms 11

TUCC Networking Activities 11

Resource/Advisory Council Activities 12

PROGRAM ANALYSIS 13

ATTACHMENTS 14

A Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Automatic Cigarette Dispenser and Lighter TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Page

ATTACHMENTS (cont.) 14

B Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of Cooking Utensil Holder

C Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of Coffee Filter Dispenser

D Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Review of the Revolving Mobilizer

E Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Freon Compressor/Low Temperature Heat

F Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Evaluation Report of the Steering Control System for Tractor- Trailers and Combinations

G Cover Letter, Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report, and Letter of Referral to the New York TCC Regarding Multi-Stage Shower Device

H Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of Handy Shelf

I Cover Letter, Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report, and Letter of Referral to the Augusta BDC Regarding Cordless Electric Iron

J Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of Auto Anti-Fatigue Alarm Device

K Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Electric Mop

L Two Memorandums dated February 7 and March 23, 1984, Regarding Product Testing and Evaluation of Field Test Results of the Shower Bath Economizer

ICI A Participating Agreement with Consolidated Industries

APPENDIX

1 Technology Commercialization Program Quarterly Meeting of TCC Directors SUMMARY

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) handled 42 client cases this quarter. Interaction with other TCCs in the network continues to decline, probably because of concerns for the program's survival. The Center has been involved in various program related activities, generating additional visibility. Some results have been realized from our attendance at these affairs. The Center has also begun to implement some of the recommendations made by the Resource/Advisory Council members. By initiating these recommendations, the Center will improve its delivery services and provide more of its resources to participating minority-owned firms. TUCC has also accepted the responsibility for contacting MBDA to express the TCC Directors' concerns and views regarding the changes in the TCC program. TUCC will facilitate the exchange of information between other TCCs and MBDA. Unfortunately, achieving this objective takes time, and progress has been slow. INTRODUCTION

This report describes the work performed during this quarter (January, February, and March 1984) by the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. The report is divided into three major categories: WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, and PROGRAM ANALYSIS. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER is described under three main topics: Product Development and Commercialization Activities, Product/Venture Ideas, and Resource Searches and Identifications for Minority-Owned Firms and Entrepreneurs. The PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT section describes TUCC's administrative efforts, its plans, and its various interrelated activities involving TUCC support staff, advisory council members, TUCC participants, and other centers in the network. This section has six main topics: TUCC Administrative Activities, Support Staff Activities, TUCC Participating Firms' Activities, TUCC Networking Activities, and Resource/Advisory Council Activities. PROGRAM ANALYSIS, the final section of the report, describes the Director's view of the program's progress, its effectiveness, and its future. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER

Evaluation - Product Development and Commercialization Activities

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) serviced a total of 42 clients during this reporting period. The center received 13 new requests for service, all requesting preliminary technical and engineering evaluations of new ideas, concepts, and innovations. Six of the 13 requests were referred by Minority Business Development Centers (MBDCs). One request was referred by the Memphis State University Regional Economic Development Center. The remaining six originated from TUCC's ongoing outreach and marketing efforts. Seven client files were closed because they have not requested additional assistance from the Center. Six other projects are inactive. These clients have not responded to our request for additional information. However, TUCC called all of the nonresponsive clients, and each indicated that we can expect a response in one or two months. Preliminary technical and engineering evaluations were completed on 11 product/venture ideas. Reports have been mailed to all clients. Only two have requested additional services. TUCC's technology identification efforts and resource search activities continue. We are now responding to four minority-owned firms who expressed interest. Consolidated Industries Peel Technical Services Kibbie Corporation Delta Manufacturing and Sales Two TCCs, Illinois Technical Research Institute (IITRI) and Puerto Rico's Technology Center, utilized our evaluation resources. The Puerto Rico Center requested technical and engineering evaluations on six of its projects and IITRI had one request. Four TUCC clients are being assisted with product development efforts. The assistance is being provided directly by TUCC's support staff, by individuals and groups suggested by our Resource/Advisory Council members

-3- or directly by staff from Resource/Advisory Council's firms, organizations, or institutions. Product/Venture Ideas

The following is a capsule description of the product/venture ideas and minority-owned firms assisted during this quarter.

Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization Kibbie Kapsule TUCC continues to assist the inventor of this product with identifying additional markets. The TUCC Director contacted its Honeywell Corporation Resource/Advisory Council Member, Mr. Hirshfeld, to request that he make inquiries about the need for this product at Honeywell. We also asked him to explore the possibility of Honeywell's being interested in distributing this product since it appeared to be a related product to equipment they were already distributing. Mr. Hirshfeld agreed to explore these possibilities and inform us of his findings. If his response is positive, I will arrange a meeting between Mr. Hirshfeld of Honeywell and Mr. Kibbie of the Kibbie Corporation.

Evaluations Completed Automatic Cigarette Lighter/Dispenser -- TUCC's evaluation determined that this product idea was sound, could be manufactured, but has limited commercial potential. The lack of specific marketing information prevents TUCC from making any definitive statement about this idea's commercial potential. TUCC suggested that marketing data be obtained before additional product development work is started. TUCC suggested that the inventor contact the Atlanta Business Development Center for such services. A copy of our evaluation report was mailed to Mr. Eugene Campbell, Director of the Atlanta MBDC (Attachment A). Cooking Utensil Holder -- The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product idea is technically sound. Its chances for commercial success appear limited because the size of the market is not large. The inventor was advised that a market study be conducted before he proceeds with product development (Attachment B).

-4- Coffee Filter Dispenser __ The evaluation determined that the product/venture idea is technically sound and can be engineered. However, its commercial potential could not be determined from the information submitted. The inventor was advised that a patent search should be performed to determine if similar product ideas exist. Additionally, a market study needs to be performed to determine the market size; and whether the market supports the need for such a product (Attachment C). Revolving Mobilizer -- TUCC's preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product idea was mostly theoretical and required a considerable amount of additional empirical research (Attachment D). Freon Compressor/Low Temperature Heat -- TUCC could not make any definitive determination of this product idea's soundness or commercial potential because the information submitted was incomplete and insufficient to perform even a preliminary evaluation (Attachment E). Steering System for Tractor Trailers -- TUCC's preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the inventor's idea is sound. However, a lot more research is needed in the engineering and design areas. Therefore, TUCC suggested the inventor continue his work and provide us with additional information at a later date (Attachment F). Multi-Stage Shower Device -- TUCC's evaluation determined the device to be technically sound and manufacturable. Its commercial potential depends on identifying its market, establishing its need and promoting its usefulness (Attachment G). Handy Shelf -- TUCC's evaluation determined that the product idea was sound and could be manufactured. However, it was not new technology and did not fit the program's scope of work. The product could be constructed from plastic or wood. TUCC suggested that the inventor contact the Charlotte, N.C. MBDC for further assistance (Attachment H). Cordless Iron -- The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation indicated that the idea appears sound and can be developed, but a great deal of design work is still needed. The inventor was referred to the

-5- Augusta Business Development Center (ABDC) for additional assistance (Attachment I). Auto Anti-Fatigue Alarm -- TUCC's evaluation report determined that the product idea is sound and can be engineered. Its commercial potential cannot he determined, but its success appears to be closely linked to marketing and identifying its needs (Attachment J). Electric Mop -- The TUCC technical and engineering evaluation determined that this product idea is technically sound and can be manufactured. Its commercial success could not be determined from the information submitted. TUCC suggested that the inventor obtain information about the market size, and the attitude of the industry toward new product ideas, specifically this concept. Additionally, the inventor must know if a need for such a product exists (Attachment K). Therefore, to get an answer to this question, we suggested that this industry's trade association be contacted.

Product/Venture Ideas and Technologies Undergoing Further Exploration Portable Colostomy Kit -- TUCC arranged a meeting between the inventor and a surgeon who performs colostomy operations at the Atlanta Veterans Administration Hospital Center to discuss the product's need. The doctor believes a need for such a product exists. He also agreed to evaluate the product and give his opinion. TUCC is now assisting the inventor with finding a company to build the prototype. Shower Bath Economizer -- TUCC's support staff continues to work with TVA on developing testing procedures for this product idea. We have reviewed the forms for monitoring and evaluating the product's performance where it is installed (Attachment L). The next step is installing the product at various sites. Automatic Cable Tester -- TUCC's support staff met with Columbus Saunders, President of Consolidated Industries, to finalize the participating agreement and discuss the responsibilities of TUCC, Electronic Computer Science Laboratory (ECSL), and Consolidated Industries. TUCC's support staff will develop design drawings and identify the

-6- necessary parts. The parts list and drawings will be sent to Consolidated who will order parts and construct a prototype. The prototype will then be tested and debugged by ECSL. TUCC will coordinate all activities and intercede when problems arise (Attachment M).

Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation Cable XX 3-D Puzzle -- This is a concept for a three dimensional game. The product idea has been reviewed and is being assigned to an evaluating staff. It was referred by a business development center in Virginia. Word Processor-Printer -- This concept attempts to combine the elements of a typewriter and a CRT from a word processor into a single unit. The device is aimed at a special market group. The Cyclic Multiple Joint Exerciser -- This is an inexpensive exercising device for individuals with muscular problems in their joints, e.g., fingers, knees, and elbows. The technology was identified in a government laboratory. Flex Clip -- This device holds the cyclist's foot to the peddle, enabling the cyclist to maintain a steady speed and remove his foot easily when stopped. Flash Card Puzzle -- This is an innovative learning game. The product is still undergoing review. Compu-Call-Computer Game -- This product idea allows sports enthusiasts to call plays while watching televised football games and to match their skill against the actual game. Temperature Control Sensor (for large computers) -- This device concept is aimed at alerting individuals to possible breakdowns in large computers due to overheating even when the thermostat is operating properly. Resource Searches and Technology Identifications for Minority Firms and Entrepreneurs

Terry Manufacturing -- Work with the firm continues. A meeting, scheduled for February, was postponed until this company is ready to meet with TUCC's Resource/Advisory Council members (R/ACM) at General Electric. The GE R/ACM has agreed to assist the firm with identifying specific product lines suitable for them to manufacture. Additionally, TUCC is also looking for new technology that will improve productivity in this plant. Consolidated Industries -- TUCC has also requested its R/ACM at Honeywell to identify possible product lines that this firm can manufacture. Consolidated is attempting to expand into producing electronic computer boards and is researching the state-of-the-arts in equipment for this segment of the industry. Honeywell is also helping the firm plan for this expansion. AIV Corporation -- TUCC has discontinued working with this firm because they failed to maintain contact with us, making it difficult for us to monitor AIV's involvement with our Resource/Advisory Council members who are assisting this firm. P&P Industries -- TUCC maintains only telephone contact with this firm. The company's progress on securing a contract and funds from the Veterans Administration and SBA has not proceeded as planned. However, the firm still is interested in utilizing TUCC's services. Peel Technical Services -- Contact with this firm continues; however, because of problems the firm is encountering, our efforts to complete a profile of its potential capabilities has been delayed indefinitely. Delta Manufacturing and Sales -- Telephone contact with this firm continues. Our last conversation regarding the present needs for our locating a test site for the product was premature. The president stated he would contact us if he needed our services. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

TUCC Administrative Activities

The TUCC Director was involved in several marketing and program promotional meetings. Our participation in such significant activities should strengthen the Center's resource base. The Director also continues to work toward improving the Center's ability to deliver quality services to its clients. To strengthen the Center's local support and make its services known, several meetings were held with local, state and national governments, and private sector representatives. At the beginning of this year, we were contacted by Mr. Samuel L. Dumas, Commercial Marketing representative with the Georgia Electric Power Co., who wanted to meet with the staff of the Rural Assistance Program (RAP) and TUCC to inform us about Georgia Power's new program aimed at assisting small communities and business groups. The program is designed to revitalize designated small communities in Georgia. Both TUCC and RAP Directors were briefed on Georgia Power's program and agreed that we should maintain contact and work together when the occasion arises. Dr. Stephen F. Hirshfeld, Manager, Corporate Planning for Honeywell and a TUCC Resource/Advisory Council member, visited TUCC in January to discuss how best his company could assist. Mr. Hirshfeld was unable to attend the Annual Resource/Advisory Council meeting because of the weather conditions in Minneapolis, but was impressed with the program's concept. He agreed to work with two TUCC participating firms, Kibbie Corporation and Consolidated Industries. In February the Director met with Mr. Robert "Jackie" Beavers, Executive Assistant to Governor Joe Frank Harris to acquaint him with and discuss the resources and specific programs at Georgia Tech, which are funded by the Minority Business Development Agency and which are aimed toward assisting minority-owned businesses. The TUCC Director continues to maintain a relationship with the Department of Health and Human Services' Administration on Aging.

-9- The TUCC Director attended the quarterly TCC Director's meeting in Puerto Rico. The meeting primarily focused on changes that the program was undergoing, and what the directors felt could be done to change MBDA's proposed program plan (Appendix 1). We discussed strategies for letting MBDA know our feelings and suggested modifications to the proposed plans. Everyone agreed that the Georgia Tech and IITRI Centers should take the lead in developing this strategy and contacting key people in MBDA. The Directors of both TUCC and RAP attended the Governor's Annual Breakfast. We anticipate that contacts made at this affair and others will generate requests and referrals. TUCC was visited by the Regional staff assigned to monitor the program. The final evaluation report has not been completed. However, it appears the Center has no grave program concerns. Some changes were recommended regarding the manner in which TUCC accounts for its involvement with clients and other resources. TUCC is working to correct these deficiencies.

Support Staff Activities

TUCC's support staff, those who evaluate new ideas and those who evaluate the capability of minority-owned firms, continues to function effectively. The Center's Director is enthusiastic about two plans that involve more support staff. TUCC has begun to explore a more innovative and effective way of helping entrepreneurs and firms get their product ideas developed (building prototypes). Consolidated Industries is a good example (Attachment M). Additionally, TUCC is utilizing its support staff to help firms operate more effectively. The assistance includes reducing operating costs, improving their management systems, and utilizing new technologies to increase productivity. MCC Participating Firms' Activities

The number of TUCC participating firms remains constant. We are moving slowly because we think the firms selected to participate at this program level should represent the type of firms the Center wants to constantly attract. Because TUCC seeks clients in this area who will be responsive, cooperative, and able to utilize and benefit from the resources available through the Center, we are very selective. Again, Consolidated Industries is cited.

TUCC Networking Activities

The TUCC Director attended two meetings this quarter that related to networking. In March, the regular TCC Quarterly Director's meeting was held in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The discussions centered around several points: changes in the program and their affects on the TCC operations; the role of the TUCC as proposed by the new program; briefings on each center's projects; and an update on the Administration on Aging Project, being performed by MARTECH. Later that same week, the Director attended the Atlanta MBDA Region's meeting of all MBDA funded organizations. This meeting was held to disseminate and exchange information among the directors of MBDA funded organizations. Changes in the MBDA program, its yearly projections, and policies were discussed. TUCC continues to receive requests from the various TCCs and MBDA funded organizations. This quarter, six MBDA funded organizations requested technical and engineering evaluation services for their clients. Requests did not increase during this period, but remained the same as the last quarter. Resource/Advisory Council Activities

Several TUCC Resource/Advisory Council members were utilized during this quarter. The Honeywell Corporation representative is exploring his company's interest in, and possibility of distributing the Kibbie Kapsule. He is also exploring subcontracting opportunities for Consolidated Industries from its defense manufacturing group. The Veterans Administration Hospital in Atlanta is performing a more intensive technical evaluation of Mr. Clarence William's new product idea, the Colostomy Kit. This evaluation should be completed by the end of April. Dr. Henry Watts, the original Southern Railway representative to the TUCC Resource/Advisory Council, was promoted by Southern Railway and felt he could no longer serve, but recommended a new corporate person, Mr. Raymond D. Hedberg. Mr. Hedberg's office is located in Atlanta. The TUCC Director has scheduled a meeting with Mr. Hedberg to acquaint him with and brief him on the program. The meeting is to take place in April. The TVA representative continues to refer inventors and act as liaison among TUCC, TVA's staff who are testing the invention, and representatives of the "Shower Bath Economizer." PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Although the continuity of the program and operating procedure is still uncertain, TUCC continues to focus its attention on improving its operation and seeking ways of expanding its services. We think MBDA's administrative officials need to become more familiar with the program concept and the resources offered by Georgia Tech. Therefore, we have extended an invitation to both the Regional and Washington Office administrators to visit TUCC. During their visit, we will give them the opportunity to see the resources available at Tech. We will also discuss the Program's direction. The monitor's visit report recommended that TUCC improve some o'c' administrative procedures so that its activity can be more accurately traced. The report also cited that the Center's filing system needs improvement. TUCC believes that the recommendations will improve the Center's overall operation and is acting to comply. TUCC also believes that the timing is perfect for implementing its plans to assist minority firms to improve their productivity, reduce operating costs, and develop creative ways for getting product development work performed. The involvement of Consolidated Industries with the Center illustrates the commitment of minority-owned firms to work jointly and cooperatively with the Center. This working relationship also demonstrates the center's ability to leverage MBDA funds, build confidence in the program's delivery capability and involve other resources. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Automatic Cigarette Dispenser and Lighter THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

February 14, 1984

Mrs. Mary H. Newsome 156 Stratford Drive, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 3031 1

Dear Mrs. Newsome:

Enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialzation's (TUCC) preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report regarding the "Automatic Cigarette Dispenser and Lighter." It is our opinion that the product is technically sound, and can be manufactured. The next step in the commercialization process is to have a market study performed and a prototype developed. This phase of the process will enable you to determine whether there is an adequate market and whether there are problems associated with manufacturing the product.

Should you require our assistance with futher commercialization activities, please contact our office. Additionally, the Atlanta Business Development Center may also be of some assistance in getting the above service performed. I suggest you contact Mr. Eugene Cambell (404) 586-0973.

TUCC is returning the written material you submitted for evaluation purposes. You may pick up the prototype at my office. Should you have questions about the evaluation, please contact me, weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at (404) 894-3833.

Sincerely, _ret.oulL;„ Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

EAB:jb

Enclosures

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332 Preliminary Technical Evaluation of THE AUTOMATIC CIGARETTE DISPENSER AND LIGHTER

submitted by Mary H. Newsome - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the AUTOMATIC CIGARETTE DISPENSER AND LIGHTER concept was performed by the staff of the Industrial Development Division, Economic Development Laboratory's Engineering Experiment Station, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product concept is sound and the manufacturing aspects appear possible without difficulty. It is our opinion that the product has commercial potential, however, this can only be determined after a preliminary market study is performed. The market study will enable you to determine what market(s) the product should be directed toward and the development of a prototype will enable you to determine how it should be designed and manufactured.

Evaluation Analysis This product idea appears most appropriate for the novelty industry; however, the general retail area may also provide market opportunities. Practically, it would be of benefit to smokers in circumstances and places when it is inconvenient to go through the motions necessary to retrieve and light a cigarette e.g., when driving, using a word processor or typewriter or performing any job in which the person's hands and concentration must be focused elsewhere. Additionally, this may also be considered a gift idea for executives, or the persons looking for unique presents.

February 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency -2-

The problems associated with this product relate more to marketing than to engineering and design, since there is a great push on by groups to deter smokers and smoking. Finding financial support for product development may be another obstacle that must be overcome.

Finally a potential technical and engineering problem is the possible fire hazard associated with not removing the lighted cigarette. This hazard appears to be associated with potential igniting of the box material or the remaining cigarettes in the box.

February 1984 Attachment B

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of Cooking Utensil Holder THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

February 27, 1984

Mr. Issac Driskell, Jr. Post Office Box 5645 Macon, Georgia 31208

Dear Mr. Driskell:

Enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's (TUCC) Technical and Engineering Evaluation report of your product idea the "Cooking Utensil Holder." The evaluation determined the product idea is sound and it can be manufactured. However, its commercial potential can not be determined from the material submitted. In order to positively determine the utility of the product and its commercial potential more detailed information is necessary. TUCC's report is divided into two segments, an evaluation summary and the evaluation analysis. The evaluation summary state finds of the evaluation; the evaluation analysis explains the findings, specific concerns, suggest alternatives and indicates, in our opinion, what additional work is necessary before any definitive statements can be made about the product idea's commercial potential.

Should you have any questions about the evaluation report, you may contact me between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays at (404) 894-3833. TUCC hopes that its evaluation of your product idea will be helpful and we appreciate your patience and your request for assistance.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

EAB:jb

Enclosure

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of COOKING UTENSIL HOLDER Submitted by Issac Driskell Jr. - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Cooking Utensil Holder concept was performed by the staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Cooking Utensil Holder" determined that the product idea appears technically sound, however, there are other patents issued that address this problem. The product idea's chances for technical success and acceptance will depend largely on the target market and consumer demand. The product can be engineered and manufactured. However, its commercial potential can not be determined from the information submitted. Its chances for commercial success is unknown, and appears limited. In our opinion, no large demand for the product idea exist.

Evaluation Analysis The feasibility of this product idea will depend heavily on consumer acceptance and the need precieved by families. The customer population that immediately comes to mind are families with young children and older citizens, however, this market segment must be identified in size and classification. Further, it is our opinion that additional factors such as preceived need, convience, practicality, desirability of an

February 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency -2-

alternative method to prevent such accidents, cost and attractiveness will play an important part in contributing to the success or non-success of the product. None of these factors can be positively determined from the material submitted for the evaluation.

The product concept can be manufactured, but much of the cost of its development for manufacture will depend upon the quality. This will also impact upon the tooling required to produce the product. It is suggested that the inventor strive to minimize the number of parts via large stamping for connectors and utensil holder together. Similarly for combining the base fork with fixed clamps. Elements of assembly should be non-flammable, easy to clean and the endorsement of the product by a recognized cooking utensil association will aid marketing.

Although prototype of the product is said to exist, additional development work and research is imperative. While a large number of photo and pictorial sketches were supplied and were helpful, these in no way constitute or can substitute for "finished working drawings." In order to evaluate the product ideas and make definative statements about the engineering and technical soundness, detailed design drawings must be submitted. This is a must before production is considered.

The evaluation raised some questions as to whether or not the product idea would universely accomodate various manufacturer's cooking surfaces. In order to have a high volume of success the product should be adaptable for all types of stove tops. The evaluator notes his own stovetop (Roper) would not have accommodated the product in the form presented. (See drawing) The "cooktop" units referred to in the material submitted, evidently refers to units similar to the Corning Ware cooktop units which have smooth cooking surfaces with heating elements underneath them. A "cooktop" unit generally applies to those units with burners (gas or electric) which are located in the kitchen separately from an oven.

February 1984 -3-

The product will, in TUCC's opinion appeal mostly to the parent with many children of preschool age. From a practical perspective, it is felt that several precautions will first be taken by this group of parents before purchasing this item. These include proper supervision, use of back burners only, and turning of the utensils to make handles inaccessible. While a child could be discouraged by this product, a curious toddler will find a way to overturn a hot pot if he is determined. A barrier fence along the front edges, and perhaps the sides of the stovetop seem less complicated an idea, but one which would still face questionable consumer acceptance.

Further, it is our opinion that information on the need for such a product idea must be explored before additional dollars are spend on developing a workable prototype.

February 1984 vr). BY C.I4 DATE_ 2/1 CP SUOJECT_PEll t 0 '414% ( er SHEET NO. I OF CHKD. BY DATE d; A S JOB NO. A.V1 zoi Si4- A V' l'o-v■ "-tm "N"-

0 0 0

r- Attachment C

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of Coffee Filter Dispenser THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

February 14, 1984

Mr. Glen Jackson Route 3, Box 104 Athens, Tennessee 37303

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's Preliminary Technical and Engineering report of your concept, "COFFEE FILTER DISPENSER." The evaluation determined the product concept to be technically sound. Its commercial potential appears feasible, but will depend upon whether there is a market for the product. Therefore it will be necessary to have a market study performed, and a prototype of the product produced.

Additionally, I am sending a copy of this report to Mrs. Nan Scott of the Tennessee Valley Authority who also may be of some assistance. Mrs. Scott can be reached by telephone at (615) 632-6670.

Should you wish futher assistance from our program please advise us.

Thank you for using our services. We hope it has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

EAB:jb Enclosures cc: Nan Scott

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency -2-

February 1984 THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of THE COFFEE FILTER DISPENSER Submitted by Glen Jackson - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the COFFEE FILTER DISPENSER concept was performed by the staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory Engineering Experiment Station, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's Preliminary Technical and Engineering evaluation determined that the product concept "Coffee Filter Dispenser" is technically sound. Its present design appears to be free of engineering problems. It also appears to have commercial potential, however, this cannot be definitely determined until a market study is performed and a patent search is performed to determine whether there are other similar patents.

Evaluation Analysis The product concept appears to be rather straight forward in design. It appears that standard injection molding processes should be used to manufacture the product.

Cost of manufacturing this product should be explored, since this may be an important factor in getting the product in the market place.

February 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency -2-

The most practical approach may be to get a manufacturer or distributor of similar or related kitchen products interested who would assist in getting the marketing, packaging and advertising work performed. It appears that if no technical and engineering problems occur with the development of a prototype, the most costly aspect of commercializing this concept will be marketing and advertising work performed.

February 1984 Attachment D

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Review of the Revolving Mobilizer THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

February 13, 1984

Mr, James E. Edmonds 210 Barr Street Crestview, Florida 32536

Dear Mr. Edmonds:

Enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of your concept, the Revolving Mobilizer. It is our opinion that the product is mostly theory; further that the concept must be further developed to specifically determine its soundness or its commercial potential.

Enclosed also is the material you submitted for our review.

Thank you for using our service. I hope we have been of some service.

Sincerely,

Q Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

EAB:jb Enclosures

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

February 13, 1984

Mr. James E. Edmonds 210 Barr Street Crestview, Florida 32536

Dear Mr. Edmonds:

Enclosed also is the material you submitted for our review.

Thank you for using our service. I hope we have been of some service.

Sincerely,

,-- Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

EAB:jb Enclosures

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical Evaluation of THE REVOLVING MOBILIZER Submitted by James E. Edmonds - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the REVOLVING MOBILIZER Concept was performed by the staff of the Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the product concept "Revolving Mobilizer" is an interesting concept, however, it appears to be mostly theory which requires a tremendous amount of additional development of the concept. The net useful work output if any, appears to be small relative to the product's weight.

Power amplification is not feasible because it is not possible to get more out than is put in.

A review of the drawing indicates that there are enumerous frictional forces between the privotal elements and the outer rim which will reduce the power output significantly.

Evaluation Analysis The material submitted revealed that more specifics will be required to perform a thorough technical and engineering evaluation of the concept. However, the following is evident from a review of the information submitted.

February 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency -2-

- There is a difference between force amplification (hydraulic motor) and power amplification (not feasible);

- Newton's 2nd Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that any force created by an unbalanced wheel will be counteracted at the ground (relative term) attachment;

- Two equally unbalanced wheels rotating counter to each other will cancel each out producing no net force, or work.

February 1984 Attachment E

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Freon Compressor/Low Temperature Heat THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

February 13, 1984

Mr. Carl E. Braze11, Jr. Route 2, Box Z89B Middleton, Tennessee 38052

Dear Mr. Brazell:

Enclosed is the preliminary technology and engineering evaluation of your product concept, "Freon Compressor/Low Temperature Heat." The report states that the material you submitted was not complete enough for TUCC to draw any conclusion about the soundness or the commercial potential of your product idea. Should you have questions about the report please contact TUCC. Further, we will perform another evaluation of your idea should you decide to provide us additional information. The idea is interesting, but more detail is required for us to determine its technical aspects.

The evaluation does not indicate that the product concept is not workable, but to determine its technical and commercial potential more information is necessary. Enclosed also is the material you submitted for the evaluation.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

EAB:jb Enclosures

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of FREON COMPRESSOR/LOW TEMPERATURE HEAT submitted by Carl E. Braze11, Jr. - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the FREON COMPRESSOR/LOW TEMPERATURE HEAT Concept was performed by the staff of the Energy and Material Science Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary A review of the material submitted on the concept "Freon Compressor/Low Temperature Heat" determined that it lacks sufficient details for a complete technical evaluation. The lack of complete information prevents TUCC from determing the technical soundness of the product idea or its commercial potential.

Evaluation Analysis It is suggested the inventor utilize the attached diagram for determining the efficiency and corresponding theromodynamic cycle.

Specifically, no details are given about the heat balance, mass flow rates and sizing, in order to evaluate the product's manufacturability. There is no accounting for the heat required to produce from gas.

With numerous changes in temperature and fluids, thermodynamic efficiencies are generally low. How does this factor effect the device's capability?

February 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency -2-

Additionally, freon and oil are mixtures, not independent elements, unless they are housed in seperate compartments. Futher, the following concerns need to be addressed:

- Friction forces in the compressor is expected to be large.

- Complex valving will be required; this may be costly to develop.

- It appears that no consideration is given to sizing and the associated losses i.e. fans for heat transfer (evaporation or condenser).

- Reciprocating or a free piston compressor is difficult to: fluid - flow balance.

Early gas refrigeration utilized refregerant for cooling based on a "freon heat source."

February 1984 Attachment F

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Evaluation Report of the Steering Control System for Tractor-Trailers and Combinations THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332 February 15,1984

Mr. Harry C. Baldwin Post Office Box 7885 Marietta, Georgia 30065

Dear Mr. Baldwin:

Enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's preliminary technical and engineering evaluation. TUCC's evaluator's found your product concept interesting and a very ambitious endeavor. The content of your material indicates you have researched the problem, but TUCC is unsure about whether the problem still exists and about some of the technical aspects in your approach. Additionally, TUCC thinks such a complicated system would be very expensive to develop and build. Further, if the system is built as designed, TUCC thinks that it will soon be replaced by a more improved model. Futher, TUCC has concerns which are indirectly related to commercializing the product idea. All these concerns are covered in the report.

Due to these concerns TUCC thinks the product idea requires further exploration before an indepth technical and engineering evaluation is performed.

Should you have questions about the evaluation please contact TUCC. You may telephone (404) 894-3833, Monday through Friday, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. TUCC is also returning the original material submitted for evaluation.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

EAB:jb Enclosures

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of THE STEERING CONTROL SYSTEM FOR TRACTOR-TRAILER OF ALL SORTS Submitted by Harry C. Baldwin - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Steering Control System concept was performed by the staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory Engineering Experiment Station, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Steering Control System for Tractor-Trailers and Combinations" determined that the concept appears sound, but this appears to be a very complicated mechnical device. From an engineering standpoint additional development will be required. The material submitted is insufficient to determine the product idea's commercial potential at this point in its development.

Evaluation Analysis The concept appears to address a long standing problem of improving the turning difficulties of tractor-trailers. The inventor approachs the problem from a mechanical standpoint, however, if the problem still exists and needs addressing, it is our opinion that it should be addressed from an electronic standpoint. The mechanical approach is very expensive, and appears to be cost prohibited. An electronic device is more the state-of-the-art and would be less expensive to develop and manufacture.

February 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency -2-

Several questions arise about the usefulness of such a device and its acceptance in the market. As presently designed, there appears to be large development problems in the area of engineering safety and reliability factors. Additionally, this device will require a new type of maintence support.

Market penetration will be a difficult factor since government regulations are involved and the product will require government approval and development of new standards. Additionally, acceptance by the industry users will have to be obtained and the transportation industry is a difficult industry to introduce a new product, unless you are one of the major manufacturers of transportation equipment and vehicles.

Another major concern relates to economics. Development cost for the product, as concieved, will be very high, and there are some unanswered questions about the steering geometry. Although the inventor has performed some research into the problem and about its needs in this area, TUCC feels additional exploratory work is necessary. The evaluator suggest the inventor may need to have his concept modeled on a computer, then have a more complete set of drawings developed.

Thus it is TUCC's opinion that the concept as presently designed and presented is very complicated, needs additional development from a technical and engineering standpoint. Futher, as designed, the product idea as presented has a very poor chance of becoming a commercial success.

February 1984 Attachment G

Cover Letter, Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report, and Letter of Referral to the New York TCC Regarding Multi-Stage Shower Device THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

March 20, 1984

Nicholas & Ruth DiTucci 73 Flower City Park Rochester, New York 17615

Dear Mr. & Mrs. DiTucci:

Enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's (TUCC) preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report. The evaluation determined that the product concept "Multi-Stage Shower" is technically sound and can be manufactured. The degree of commercial success of the product cannot be determined from the information submitted, since this will depend greatly upon marketing efforts and manufacturing cost. Therefore, the market needs to be specifically identified. Prototypes need to be developed and demonstrated to determine product efficiency. It is suggested that hospitals, hotels and other such institutions should be considered as places to test this device.

Further, it is suggested that the New York Technology Commercialization Center be involved. TUCC is willing to work with this TCC and assist with other commercialization. The director is:

Mr. Arauza Goldin Boone, Young and Associates 551 5th Avenue - Suite 320 New York, N.Y. 10176 (212) 661-8044

I will forward Mr. Goldin a copy of this evaluation upon your request and talk with him about us working together to assist you with the commercialization of your product concept.

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Mr. & Mrs. DiTucci March 20, 1984 Page 2

TUCC is returning the material you submitted for its evaluation. Should you have questions about the evaluation report please call. I can be reached at (404) 894-3833 weekdays between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm. TUCC hopes that our services have been helpful.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

EAB:wc Enclosure THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of MULTI-STAGE SHOWER DEVICE Submitted by Nicholas & Ruth DiTucci - Inventors

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Multi-stage Shower" concept was performed by staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept. Evaluation Summary

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product idea "Multi-Stage Shower" device is technically sound and it can be engineered and manufactured without difficulty. Its commercial potential is dependent upon identifying a market, establishing its need and promoting its usefulness. The success of the product in the market place cannot be determined from information provided for its evaluation. Evaluation Analysis

The product concept's design appears well conceived. Product cost needs to be determined as well as the cost of building a prototype(s). Product testing is critical and is necessary to obtain information about its operating efficiency.

The product idea is not entirely new, however it is a new innovation in the personal care product's industry. The product idea competes with existing individual personal care items; although it is different. Acceptance of this device and its components will depend on good marketing efforts and how the customer perceives its usefulness.

March 1984

A Proaram of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Minority Business Development Agency Thus, it should be used in test facilities that can demonstrate its capabilities such as, hospitals, hotels, nursing homes, etc., before it is brought to the consumer. The proper individual component containers must be ready for sale at the same time the unit is market-ready. An alternative may be to design the unit to accept a range of standard containers and other desired products will be filled from these containers into the unit's container(s) sold with the unit.

The importance of developing a well structured marketing plan cannot be over stressed, because the information from the market study will help to determine the approach to manufacturing and production cost.

It appears that the product will require only minimum technical services, if any. A concern however, is whether the "Multi-Stage Shower" will be structured so that distribution channels for soap and other personal care items will remain open and ready for proper use when needed. Specifications for the product can be drawn without difficulty and no specialist is required for its operation.

Since this is a product aimed at consumers, care should be taken to make sure component parts are well marked and instructions for use are clear, simple and easy to understand.

It appears that some plastic molds will be required, otherwise the manufacturing process is quite straightforward. The product may require special packaging for retail sales. Specifications for the product can readily be developed.

Overall, the product idea is well conceived, its design concept is complete and acceptable. Presently, market identification production cost and prototype are elements that are needed to move the idea into the market-ready stage.

March 1984 THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

March 26, 1984

Mr. Arauza Goldin Boone, Young and Associates 551 5th Avenue - Suite 320 New York, N.Y. 10176

Dear Goldin,

Enclosed is a cover letter to Mr. & Mrs. DiTucci and our preliminary technical and engineering report. I'm referring the clients to your center because you can best help these inventors estimate what the cost will be to build several prototypes and identify primary and secondary markets.

After this step has been taken TUCC would be willing to help locate possible test sites and assist with putting together an investment package.

Once you have the material and have reviewed our preliminary technical and engineering report please call me to discuss how we can work together to assist with the commercialization of this product/venture idea.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

Enclosures

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Attachment H

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of Handy Shelf THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

February 13, 1984

Mrs. Daisy Weaver Financial Consultant Boone Young & Associates 230 South Tryon Street - Suite 1030 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Dear Mrs. Weaver:

Enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's technical review report of the "Handy Shelf" product idea submitted by Mr. lames L. Young. Our evaluation determined that the product idea is technically sound. It can be easily manufactured, but it is not new technology. The product can be constructed from a plastic mold or from wood. Therefore it falls more into the new venture (new business start-up) catagory than in the new technology catagory. The fact that Mr. Young has had orders for the product substantiates this fact.

It is our suggestion that Mr. Young consider having this product manufactured by a plastics' parts manufacturer or by a cabinet maker. I suggest contacting the plastic molder:

Custom Molders Inc. 1731 Camden Avenue Durham, North Carolina 27704 (919) 688-8061 Mr. F. R. Anderson, President

I further suggest that you contact one of the major retail company's like K-Mart or others to obtain orders for the product. Once the owner of the idea has orders in hand then he/she can discuss the details with the manufacturer.

Another approach is to talk with a manufacturer first and get an agreement to produce the product if the owner of the product idea can obtain orders from a major retailer, then he/she can give the manufacturer an exclusive or a non-exclusive right to produce the product.

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Should you need futher assistance from us please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for using our services and requesting our assistance.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

EAB:jb Enclosures THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332 Preliminary Technical Evaluation of HANDY SHELF

submitted by James L. Young - Inventor

Referred by Boone Young & Associates

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Handy Shelf Product Concept was performed by the staff of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center Engineering Experiment Station, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Review Summary TUCC's technical review of the product/venture idea "Handy Shelf" determined that the product idea is sound, has utility, can be manufactured and appears to have no engineering problems; however, it is not new technology and does not fit into this program's scope of assistance. The product idea is not new and has been constructed by do-it-yourself carpenters and individuals for some time. According to the material submitted the product does have commercial potential. The present design appears adequate and acceptable for the commerical market.

Review Analysis The product can easily be constructed from wood or from plastic. A plastic model may be some what more costly for a start up operation, however in the long run this may be more feasible, since plastic is more durable. (Plastic has less maintenance problems, does not require painting to preserve its life span, and can easily be disassembled.)

The process of building a mold can be performed by any contract manufacturer.

February 1984 A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Attachment I

Cover Letter, Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report, and Letter of Referral to the Augusta BDC Regarding Cordless Electric Iron THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

February 20, 1984

Mr. Lee O'Daniel Wallace 3009 Georgia Road Augusta, Georgia 30906

Dear Mr. Wallace:

Enclosed is the Preliminary Technical and Engineering Report of your product idea the CORDLESS ELECTRIC IRON. The TUCC evaluation determined that the concept appears sound and it can possibly be developed, however, a great deal more work is necessary before TUCC can make any determination about its commercial potential.

The product idea must be presented in more detail if TUCC's evaluators are expected to determine how the product idea works. This will require architectural drawing so that the evaluator will know what component parts are included. Thus it is suggested that you contact an industrial designer who can help put your idea in context.

Additionally, a patent search should be conducted to determine whether other similar products have been patented and if so, what has happened to the patent since it was filed. The Georgia Tech Library can be of some assistance in this area. I suggest you contact Mrs. Barbara Walker (404) 894-4538. Although the idea is interesting the above things must be done before TUCC can determine whether your idea has commercial potential.

TUCC and the Augusta Georgia Tech field office will be in touch with the Augusta Business Development Center to discuss how best we can be of assistance. Presently you have only a concept, whether that concept is workable, can be produced at a reasonable cost, for those interested in buying such a product, has yet to be determined. TUCC therefore suggests you maintain contact with the Augusta Business

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency -2-

Development Center. Should you have questions about the enclosed evaluation report please contact us. TUCC is open between 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. and can be reached at (404) 894-3833. Enclosed also is the material you submitted for the evaluation.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director EAB:jb cc: David Poss Harvey Johnson Barbara Walker THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report

CORDLESS IRON

Lee Wallace - Inventor

Submitted by Augusta Business Development Center

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the CORDLESS ELECTRICAL IRON concept was performed by the staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station, at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary The Preliminary Technical and Engineering evaluation determines that the "Cordless Electric Iron" product idea appears reasonable and may be technically sound. However, definitive conclusions about its engineering can not be drawn from the information submitted. Additionally, neither can the commercial potential of your product idea be determined because of the same above reason. However, the idea appears worth exploring further.

Evaluation Analysis The Cordless Iron idea needs further research and development before any determination can be made about its technical, engineering and commercial potential. The idea somewhat resembles the old "flat iron" of an earlier period. However materials and electronic technology are available today that may make this idea feasible, however it is far from being developed.

February 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency -2-

It is our opinion, based on the inventor's description, that there are no large development problems; the proposed idea could be manufactured and specification for the product can be drawn.

The product idea has a long life cycle and a long life use cycle. No specialists are required for product's use and it does not require substantial technical support to maintain its use. However, it may require U.L. approval.

No patent search has been conducted to determine whether there are similar ideas recorded and if so what is their status. Further, no market identification work has been performed to determine what customer population might be targeted for such a product, nor has the product idea been developed enough to determine anything about its production and retail cost. The inventor needs the assistance of an architect to produce architectual drawing of his idea. This would enable any evaluator to better understand the design concepts and whether it is workable and cost effective.

February 1984 THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

February 20, 1984

Mr. Harvey Johnson, Executive Director Augusta Business Development Center 1208 Laney-Walker Boulevard Augusta, Georgia 30901-2796

Dear Harvey:

Thank you for referring Mr. Lee Wallace to the Technology Utilization & Commercialization Center through our outreach facility the Georgia Tech Augusta Area Office. Enclosed are copies of the cover letter to Mr. Lee Wallace and the Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report for your review.

Mr. Wallace's product idea appears sound and it can possibly be developed, however, additional work is required before any determination of its commercial potential can be made. The inventor will need assistance getting his product idea formulated. Specifically, he needs an industrial designer to help him construct his idea. This will allow us to know what materials and component parts will be needed to develop the product idea. The TUCC program has exhausted all of its development funds for such assistance, however, we can provide the resources to get the job performed and are willing to work with you and the inventor to get this task accomplished. Additionally, the inventor will have to have a market study performed and TUCC is also willing to work with your staff on this task.

I suggest that we get together to discuss the roles each operation can play in helping this inventor get his product idea further evaluated, developed and commercialized. Please contact me to let me know of your interest. I can be reached at (404)894-3833, between 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

EAB:jb cc: David Poss

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Mania. Georgia 30332

February 20, 1984

Mr. Harvey Johnson, Executive Director Augusta Business Development Center 1208 Laney-Walker Boulevard Augusta, Georgia 30901-2796

Dear Harvey:

Thank you for referring Mr. Lee Wallace to the Technology Utilization dt Commercialization Center through our outreach facility the Georgia Tech Augusta Area Office. Enclosed are copies of the cover letter to Mr. Lee Wallace and the Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report for your review.

Sincerely, geL)•1`:' Q Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

EAB:jb

cc: David Poss

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Attachment J

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of Auto Anti-Fatigue Alarm Device THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University system of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

March 20, 1984

Mr. Issac Driskell, Jr. P.O. Box 5645 Macon, Georgia 31208 Dear Mr. Driskell: Enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report. The evaluation determined that the product idea is technically sound, it can be easily engineered and inexpensively manufactured. However, the evaluation also points out some important concerns which you should consider. The evaluation report specifies details. TUCC is returning the material you submitted for evaluation, however, should you require additional services from our center or have questions about the evaluation report, please contact me. I can be reached at (404) 894-3833, weekdays between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm. TUCC hopes that its assistance has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate 451 TUCC Director EAB:wc Enclosure

Prnriram of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of AUTO ANTI-FATIGUE ALARM Submitted by Issac Driskell - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Auto Anti-Fatigue Alarm" concept was performed by staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept. Evaluation Summary The technical and engineering evaluation of the "Auto Anti-Fatigue Alarm" determined that the product idea is technically sound and it can be engineered and manufactured. Its commercial potential cannot be definitively determined from the information submitted. The commercial success of the product idea will be strongly linked to marketing efforts, established needs and demonstrated usefulness.

Evaluation Analysis The product idea is new, and is directed to an identified problem. Extensive research has been conducted on driving fatigue but it is unknown whether this device can aid in resolving this problem. Although the device concept is technically sound, its capability to perform as described can only be determined from test. Therefore, a prototype is needed. Two important aspects of the device is of concern and should be further explored. The first, in our opinion is that there is reason to believe that having the switch located in a stationary position may, in itself, be a source of fatigue. Secondly, there may be considerable product liability associated with the product concept. In cases where there is an accident which could be caused by driver fatigue questions may arise about the device's effectiveness. If this device is supposed to keep the driver alert in order to prevent accidents, product liability may become a major issue.

March 19,84

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency The product idea is well conceived, and can easily be manufactured at a very low cost. The product when manufactured will need no technical service nor maintenance support.

Product testing is extremely important; also government regulations pertaining to this type of device may be required and this area should be examined. Additional design engineering is required. Mold design and specific component layout will also be required.

Product cost needs to be researched and determined. Additionally existing research studies about driver fatigue needs to be examined to determine whether their recommendations are similar to the concept presented. If so, this will give the product idea a boost and edge when seeking investment capital. Devices related to the automobile industry is one of the most difficult to penetrate unless it is directed toward the after market segment of the industry.

Overall, the product concept is good. Identifying its specific niche will enhance the product's commercial potential, however, additional research and development is required before the product can be considered to be market ready.

March 1984 Attachment K

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Electric Mop THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

March 19, 1984

Mr. Melvin McCoy 4197 Buford Ellington North Memphis, Tenn. 38111

Dear Mr. McCoy,

Enclosed is the Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of your product idea "Electric Mop". It is our opinion that the concept is technically sound and can be engineered without difficulty. Its commercial potential depends upon marketing efforts. There are several ways this product can be marketed, but additional marketing information is required.

The next step in the commercialization process is to determine the cost of building a prototype(s) for testing purposes.

This is a necessary step to determine the retail/wholesale price of the product. Additionally, this information is necessary to develop an investment package for interested persons and organizations who wish to invest in its manufacture or distribution.

The Regional Economic Development Center may be able to assist with this aspect. TUCC services are available to work with this organization should you or they desire our assistance. A copy of our report and this cover letter will be sent to their offices.

TUCC is also returning the material you provided for the evaluation. Should you have questions about the evaluation report or require further assistance I can be reached at (404) 894-3833 between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm weekdays. TUCC hopes its involvement has been helpful. Should you need additional services please contact our office.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

Cc: The Regional Economic Development Center

Enclosures

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of THE ELECTRIC MOP

Melvin McCoy - Inventor Referred by Regional Economic Development Office

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Electric Mop" concept was performed by staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept. Evaluation Summary The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Electric Mop" determined that the product concept is technically sound. The product idea can be engineered and designed without difficulty. The idea's commercial potential will depend upon identifying a receptive market and how well its usefulness and cost saving features can be projected and demonstrated. Market penetration is very much dependent upon demonstrating to customers/industrial users that improved floor care can be derived through the product's use. Thus, linking the product with a leading detergent or floor care solution could aid 'marketing commercialization efforts. Presently the product idea has an average chance for success. Evaluation Analysis The product concept is not entirely new, but is an extension of innovations of the household appliance/industrial maintenance equipment industry. The rechargeable power aspect and the battery pack is the present state of the art in this industry; this enhances this concept's marketing potential and possibly its effeciency. The product concept's present competition is regular cloth and sponge mops as well as more costly buffers.

March 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority BuSiness Development Agency It appears that if product testing demonstrates its cost saving aspect and manufacturing cost is kept at a minimum, the product idea could compete satisfactorily with existing floor care products.

A complete description (set of instructions) of floor care operations must be developed. These instructions should be aimed at a specific market segment, one that is best suited for the product's capability. This could be residential households, institutions, industrial or the office business sectors. Prototypes could be built to service both major markets and tested in these environments.

TUCC's evaluators raised one concern, which should be considered by the inventor. It appears that rinsing the floor was ignored or overlooked as a possible feature of this product. Thus in order to do a thorough job of floor care will a regular mop be used to handle this aspect of floor cleaning? Rinsing may be a feature worth considering as part of the product. Additionally, the long range outlook for products of this kind should be watched closely to determine what affect improved floor surfaces will have of cleaning devices. The trend seems to be going toward improving floor covering material thereby, reducing floor care efforts.

This product concept requires only limited maintenance; no technical servicing and supportive personnel. It can be manufactured without difficulty and specifications can be drawn. No specialist is required to operate this machine.

Product testing for durability and operating efficiency is required before introduction into the marketplace. During the development of prototype(s), consideration should be given to retail packaging and distribution.

March 1984 Attachment L

Two Memorandums dated February 7 and March 23, 1984, Regarding Product Testing and Evaluation of Field Test Results of the Shower Bath Economizer NEWMAN, DAVIS & NAGEL Technical er Management Consultants

1115 E. NOKOMIS CIR. • KNOXVILLE, TN 37919

615-522-1018

PRINCIPALS

IRVIN P. NEWMAN. ► utsioawr DENT C. DAVIS. JR.. VICE PRESIDENT M. NAGEL. ►.E.. TREASURER MEMORANDUM

To: Those Shown Below From: Ery Newman, TVA Consultant Subject: Status of Testing Program-Shower Bath Economizer Project (SBE) ,te: February 7, 1984

1. Edwin A. Bethea, TUCC Director, Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332

2. Edward H. Hardison, Georgia Tech Engineering Experiment Station, 2402 Dawson Road, Albany, GA 31707

3. James A. Hall, Project Engineer, Electrical Utilization Group, 1850 CUBB-C, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

4. Raymond Hunter, 2112 Ivy St., Chattanooga, TN 37404

5. Nan Scott, TVA, 1B34 Old City Hall Building, Knoxville, TN 37902 6. Edwin Casey, 105 Parkwood Circle, Greenville, TN 37743

7. Ron D. Wilson, Mechanical Engineer, 1850 CUBB-C, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

8. B.C. McCall, Investment Councilor, 625 Hulsey St., Chattanooga, TN 37405

9. Amin M. Kamal, Projects Manager, Electrical Utilization Group, 1850 CUBank, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

Based on telephone discussions with James Hall, Project Manager and others in early February 1984,the current status of the SBE Testing Program is summarized as follows:

1. Selection of Field Installations.

Thirty-three (33) SBE units distributed by category and location as indicated below will be installed. Please note that there has been a minor cha e from previous resort in distribution but no cha .. e in totals for SBE's. Agreements with t e respective owners or occupants have been signed.

Memorandum Page 2 No. of No. of Category Locations SBE Units

Residential 27 27 Fire Halls 2 2 Motels 2 4 31 33 2. Area Distribution of Field Installations.

Number of SBE Units

Area Residential Fire Halls Motels Total Chattanooga TN 13 2 4 19 Cleveland TN 10 - 10 N. Georgia 4 - - 4 Total 27 2 4 33 Please note cha e from previous resort in that two Fire Hall insta a i•ns have been eliminated because of complications inplumbing and 2 SBE's are therefore added to Residential units. 3. Special Instrumentation. Four SBE units (1 in Chattanooga, 2 in Cleveland and 1 in North Georgia) will be equipped with special instrumentation including BTU meters and data loggers to record performance. This instrumentation has been procured by TVA and is available for installation by the plumbing contractors. It is reported that BTU meters did not function properly before installation and are being replaced by better instrumentation.

4. Status of Plumbing Installations.

a. The firm of Ted Caldwell of Chattanooga was awarded the contract for installing the SBE's in that city at $261 per unit. 11 of the 19 SBEs have been installed. The instrumented SBE has not yet been installed.

b. The firm of Jerry Chambers of Ft. Oglethorpe, GA, was awarded the contract for installing 4 SBEs in that area at a cost of $300 per unit. Three have been installed with the instrumented unit still remaining.

c. No bids were received from the Cleveland, TN, area for installations in that community, hence the two firms under contract in Chattanooga and N..Georgia are being asked to submit bids on the Cleveland work. They will also be asked to furnish bids for the instrumented sites at all locations. 5. Estimated Completion Dates. As stated above, 3 N. Georgia units are already in place and the remaining Chattanooga SBEs are expected to be installed by Feb. 15. This does not include instrumented units at either location. Memorandum Page 3 Assuming negotiation of a contract with either the Caldwell or Chambers firms for the Cleveland, TN, work plus the 4 units with special instrumentation at all locations by February 15, the Cleveland work is expected to be completed by March 1 and all instrumented SBEs in place by March 15, 1984.

6. SBE Testing Procedure.

Comments on draft procedure have been received and final draft has been issued.

7. Questionnaire on Performance of SBEs. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget rejected TVA's request for approval of the questionnaire to be filled out by the resident users of the SBEs. The reasons given did not seem either reasonable or applicable. Although TVA is expected to appeal the ruling, there is not much hope of a reversal. In the latter event TVA will have to conduct personal interviews with residents to obtain necessary performance data and opinions as to efficiency of the devices. This procedure is less than attractive from several standpoints not the least of which is its inability to obtain complete and objective data in a uniform manner.

Testing in EUTF at Chickamauga Dam.

A cost estimate for long term and demand testing program has been approved and the installation should be underway early this month. The former target date for completion of the installation by Feb. 1 was not met. The current target date for completion is February 20. 9. Project Management Team. No change from last report. Another review of status of this project will be made early in March.

CC: Dr. Graham Siegel, Program Manager, Electrical Utilization Group 1850 CUBB, TVA Chattanooga, TN 37401

Dr. David Patterson Program Manager, Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development, TVA 1D57 Old City Hall Building Knoxville, TN 37902 Mr. Alan Meier Lawrence Berkeley Lab Building 90H Berkeley, CA 94720 NEWMAN, DAVLS & NAGEL Technical & Management Consultants

1115 E. NOKOMIS CIR. • KNOXVILLE. TN 37919 615-522-101S &/z e/14-

PRINCIPALS ERVIN f. NEWNAN. R.I., PRESIDENT DENT C. DAVIS, JR., VICE PRESIDENT ROBERT N. NAGEL, P.C., TREASURER MEMORANDUM

To: Those Shown Below From: Ery Newman, TVA Consultant Subject: Status of Testing Program-Shower Bath Economizer Project (SBE) Dat= March 23, 1984

. Edwin A. Bethea, TUCC Director, Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332

2. Edward H. Hardison, Georgia Tech Engineering Experiment Station, 2402 Dawson Road, Albany, GA 31707

3. James A. Hall, Project Engineer, Electrical Utilization Group, 1850 CUBB-C, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

4. Raymond Hunter, 2112 Ivy St., Chattanooga, TN 37404

5. Nan Scott, TVA, 1B34 Old City Hall Building, Knoxville, TN 37902

6. Edwin Casey, 105 Parkwood Circle, Greeneville, TN 37743

7. Ron D. Wilson, Mechanical Engineer, 1850 CUBB-C, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

8. B. C. McCall, Investment Councilor, 625 Hulsey St., Chattanooga, TN 37405

9. Amin M. Kamal, Projects Manager, Electrical Utilization Group, 1850 CUBank, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

Based on telephone discussions with James Hall, Project Manager and others in mid March, 1984, the current status of the SBE Testing Program is summarized as follows:

1. Selection of Field Installations.

Thirty-two (32) SBE units distributed by category and location as indicated below are being installed. Please note that there has been a minor change from previous report. (One installation was eliminated due to personal reasons of residential occupant.) Agreements with the respective owners or occupants have been signed.

• Memorandum Page 2

No. of No. of Category Locations SBE Units

Residential 26 26 Fire Halls 2 2 Motels 2 4 30 32

2. Area Distribution of Field Installations.

Number of SBE Units

Area Residential Fire Halls Motels Total

Chattanooga, TN 13 2 4 19 Cleveland, TN 9 9 N. Georgia 4 4 Total 26 2 4 32

3. Special Instrumentation.

Four SBE units (1 in Chattanooga, 2 in Cleveland and 1 in North Georgia) will be equipped with special instrumentation including BTU meters and data loggers to record performance. This instrumentation has been procured by TVA and is available for installation by the plumbing contractor.

4. Status of Plumbing Installations.

a. The firm of R.B. Poole of Chattanooga was awarded the contract for installing the SBE's in that city at $261 per unit. SBEs have been installed; the one instrumented site remains.

b. The firm of Jerry Chambers of Ft. Oglethorpe, GA, was awarded the contract for installing 3 SBEs in that area at a cost of $300 per unit Three have been installed with the instrumented unit to be completed.

c. R. B. Poole of Chattanooga was awarded an additional contract for installing the seven SBEs in Cleveland at a cost of $287 per site. The same plumbing contractor was also awarded the work for the 4 instrumented sites in N. Georgia, Chattanooga, and Cleveland at a cost of $331 per unit.

5. Estimated Completion Dates.

At the time of this writing all non-instrumented SBEs have been installed in N. Georgia and Chattanooga. It is expected that the Cleveland SBEs as well as all instrumented SBEs will be complete by April 15, 1984.

6. SBE Testing Procedure.

Final draft of the Testing Procedure has been approved. Memorandum . Page 3

7. Questionnaire on Performance of SBEs.

TVA is still considering what can be done in the light of OMB's rejection of a request for approval of a Questionnaire to be filled out by residents using SBEs.

8. Testing in EUTF at Chickamauga Dam.

All plumbing installations at the EUTF have been completed; however, actual testing cannot go forward until the testing procedure is submitted and approved. This should be expedited by the parties involved.

9. Project Management Team.

No change.

10. It will be of interest to all recipients of this report to know that Discover magazine in its April issue on its "Invention" page reported the following item:

"The Shower Bath Economizer, brainchild of Raymond Hunter of Chattanooga, TN, uses the heat of the water running down a shower's drain to warm the cold water being piped to the shower head. The device simply passes the incoming cold water through a pipe coiled around the drain. Achieving the right shower temperature by mixing hot water with warm instead of cold can save a third or more on water-heating bills.m

Another review of status of this project will be made about May 1, 1984.

CC: Dr. Graham Siegel, Program Manager, Electrical Utilization Group 1850 CUBB, TVA Chattanooga TN 37401

Dr. David Patterson Program Manager, Office of Natural Resources & Economic Development, TVA 1D57 Old City Hall Building Knoxville TN 37902

Mr. Alan Meier Lawrence Berkeley Lab Building 90H Berkeley CA 94720 Attachment M

A Participating Agreement with Consolidated Industries Georgia Institute of Technology ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332

OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Telex: 542507 GTRIOCAATL Fax: (404) 894-3120 Phone: (404) 894— October 10, 1983

Mr. Columbus Sanders Consolidated Industries, Inc. 4410-C Evangel Circle Huntsville, Alabama 35805 Subject: Participating Agreement for Minority-owned Firms

Dear Mr. Sanders: This letter will serve as the Participating Agreement between Georgia Institute of Technology, Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) and Consolidated Industries, Inc., in order to set forth our mutual understanding of each party's goals, commitments and responsibilities.

TUCC is a part of the National Technology Commercialization Program, dedicated to the process of bringing technology-based products and services into the marketplace. The program is partially sponsored by the U. S. Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency. Each center operates in a private sector mode, but public funds are utilized. Competent and competitive minority-owned enterprises will be involved in the process of commercializing new technologies. The objective of the Technology Commercialization Program is four-fold: (1) the delivery of more technology into the nations's economic development stream; (2) the improvement of minority owned firms' productivity and expansion through new technology; (3) the identification and assessment of technologies that will enable minorities to participate in technology-based industries; and (4) the offering of assistance to companies that will develop new technology such that these companies will be better able to accept, develop and exploit new technology assessed and designated by TUCC. TUCC hopes to accomplish this objective by entering into this participation agreement with your firm.

An Equal Educational & Employment Institution" The development plan, which has been formulated in conjunction with your firm's management, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is hereby incorporated by reference into this agreement as TUCC's statement of work. Your firm's management staff and TUCC's supportive staff shall work together throughout this relationship in order to successfully implement the development plan. It is understood that the formulated plan may require changes due to circumstances related to product modification, the product market, or TUCC's operation. Your firm will be consulted on all such changes and informed prior to their occurrence. Additionally, your firm will receive monthly activity reports and a final report upon completion of the development activities. TUCC's obligation is limited to using its best efforts to perform the statement of work, consistent with resources and personnel available to TUCC. TUCC reserves the right to terminate this agreement without liability, if the Government terminates its funding to TUCC or if TUCC undergoes programmatic changes that prohibit it from performing its duties under this Agreement. By your acknowledgement below you agree that all writings produced by TUCC under this agreement shall be the sole property of the Georgia Institute of Technology and the same shall have the exclusive rights to copyright such writings. However, best efforts will be made to grant a non-exclusive right to your firm to publish such writings when circumstances will permit. Upon the completion of the work set out in this agreement, project personnel from Consolidated Industries and Georgia Tech shall mutually agree upon the inventorship rights for any inventions which have resulted from the project. Said inventorship agreement shall be set forth in writing and signed by the appropriate personnel. The goals of TUCC and your firm can be accomplished through our cooperative efforts. It is understood that if at any time, in the judgment of TUCC, the necessary cooperation from your firm in carrying out any of TUCC's policies and goals is not forthcoming, this agreement may be terminated upon reasonable notice. TUCC, therefore requests that management pledges to inform TUCC of any activity that would alter the formulated plans, or conditions which would impact negatively on implementing our goals for your firm (commercializing technology). If the firm is not satisfied with the efforts of TUCC at any time, it has the option of seeking a resolution of the matter by bringing its grievance before the Atlanta Regional office of the Minority Business Development Agency or the National Technology Commercialization Office in Washington, D. C. Either your firm or TUCC can terminate this agreement for cause, upon reasonable notice. If the provisions of this Participating Agreement are acceptable, please so indicate as noted below and return one copy of this Agreement to the undersigned. Sincerely,

Michae

Richard P. Dobb OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION /sga Receipt Acknowledged and ccepted

By (I Title

Date r 3 Exhibit A

STATEMENT OF WORK

The work to be done under this agreement is the design and construction of a cable tester.

The most effective use of technical and financial resources is expected to be achieved through Georgia Tech EES engineers* addressing design aspects of the Tester, while Consolidated Industries addresses production-related aspects. The product development effort will proceed in four phases consisting of: Design, Prototype Construction, Debug/Troubleshoot, and Preproduction Model Phases. Of these four, EMCD will do the initial design, while Consolidated Industries will assemble the prototype. Consolidated will then deliver the assembled unit to Georgia Tech, where EMCD will check out its performance. After checkout, the assembled prototype will be returned to Consolidated Industries along with any recommended changes or refinements. The particular activities during each of these phases are as follows:

I. Initial Prototype Design Phase (EMCD) Finalize block diagram of the major functional elements, as shown in Figure 1. Select/design major hardware layouts. Do breadboard hardware layouts. Document circuit designs. Document important construction ideas via rough draft drawings and sketches (not blueprints). Prepare preliminary operating software logic flow charts and key program elements.

* Georgia Tech EES engineers shall mean engineers of the Engineering Experiment Station, Electronics and Computer Systems Laboratory, Eletromagnetic Compatibility Division. II. Prototype Construction Phase (Consolidated Industries, Inc.) Order hardware. Fabricate special hardware items, e.g., P.C. boards, enclosures, front panels, etc., and associated hardware. Assemble prototype.

III. Prototype Debug Phase (EMCD) Finalize operating software. Evaluate electrical/EMC characteristics. Recommend changes for production unit.

IV. Production Design Phase (Consolidated Industries, Inc.) Commit operating software to ROM.

Design production hardware, e.g., P.C. boards, enclosure, etc. Production quality control testing. Table 1 presents the proposed time schedule to accomplish the first three phases of the cable tester development program.

In Phase I, Georgia Tech will work with Consolidated Industries to finalize the block diagram depicting the major functional elements of the cable tester. Initial ideas on packaging, specific hardware/software features which are desired, etc., will be finalized. This will be followed with the selection or design of the major hardware items, such as power supplies, microprocessor, relay switches, VIR meters, displays, and communication devices (I/O data ports, printer interfaces, etc.). Once the hardware itms have been selected, the initial circuit design will be completed and initial software will be written.

In Phase II, the hardware items will be ordered by Consolidated Industries and they will construct the initial prototype unit. In Phase III, Georgia Tech will work closely with Consolidated Industries to debug the hardware and software. The prototype unit would have basic electrical and EMC tests and evaluations performed. Modifications would be made where necessary. When the unit has been debugged, recommendations for final production designs will be made and documented. The debug work will be performed with the prototype at Georgia Tech. At the start of Phase IV, it is anticipated that Georgia Tech's involvement will be primarily ended except for incidental follow-up consulting. It is expected that Consolidated Industries will have developed the capability through the prototype design and interaction phases to follow the unit through to production with only minimal assistance from EMCD. Our cost estimate to support this developmental effort is attached. It is anticipated that two trips to Huntsville, Alabama will be necessary, with other meetings held at Georgia Tech. Note that the cost estimate does not include all the necessary hardware materials and supplies to support the design effort; these will be supplied by Consolidated Industries, Inc. TABLE I PROPOSED PROJECT TIME SCHEDULE

MONTHS FROM CONTRACT START DATE CONTRACT ACTIVITIES 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Phase I: Prototype Design (Ga. Tech) ritirmii

Phase II: Prototype Construction (Con. Ind.) -

Phase III: Prototype Debug (Ga. Tech) , , 71117.- 1

Phase IV: Production (Con. Ind.) Monthly Status Reports A I A A A A A A A A A rinal Report/Recommendations

Meet with Consolidated Industries, Inc. A A

•

COLUMN DECODE + 20

ROW RELAY DECODE SWITCH MATRIX VOLTAGE , (20X20) SOURCE I SEE NOTE 1 CURRENT I I IN OUT METER

CURRENT --j--••■ SOURCE VIR UNIT

VOLT METER

MICROPROCESSOR

1 VIR CIRCUIT DATA DISPLAY UNDERTEST I/O

NOTE 1: RELAY SWITCH ELEMENT

OUT +V GNP •

ROW IN REED RELAY COLUMN 3A-500V CONTACT RATING

Figure 1. Block diagram of major function elements ■

APPENDIX 1

Technology Commercialization Program Quarterly Meeting of TCC Directors AGENDA AGENDA

Wednesday, March 7th Thursday, March 8th 8:30 A.M. — Welcome to MBDA Officials — Review of Agenda 8:30 A.M. — Individual Project (Technology) Update • Mr. Emery L. Tomor By various Directors • Acting Chairman, Agenda Mr. Thomas Jacobius Moderator 9:00 A.M. — Discussion of changes in the program • Mr. Douglas Bennett, 10:30 A.M. — Utilization of Information Systems Moderator • Mr. Goldin Arouza r. Moderator 10:00 A.M. — Role of TUCC as program resource • Mr. Edwin Bethea 4:30 P.M. — Review of TCC Reporting Standards • Mr. Howard Novak Moderator Noon — Lunch

Friday, March 9th 2:00 P.M. — Focussing recommendations to MBDA • Mr. Douglas Bennet Moderator 8:30 A.M. — Utilization of Project Development Funds • Mr. Sanders Howse 3:00 P.M. — Drafting recommendations by Committees Moderator

4:00 P.M. — Review of recommendations by Committees 10:00 A.M. — Program Development Workshop CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS TECHNOLOGY

MBDA Participants Invited COMMERCIALIZATION

Mr. James A. Richardson - National Director PROGRAM Ms. Gina Sanchez - Director New York Region

Participating Center Directors

* Arouza Goldin QUARTERLY New York Technology Commercialization Center Boone, Young & Associates, Inc. MEETING OF * Bennett, Douglas, W. TCC DIRECTORS Northwest TCC Martech Associates, Inc. A Joint Program of: * Bethea, Edwin U.S. Department of Commerce Technology Utilization & Commercialization Center MBDA and, Georgia Institute of Technology Sponsoring Private Enterprises

* Howse, Sanders, Jr. New England TCC March 7th to 9th, 1984 * Jacobius, Thomas M. San Juan, Puerto Rico IITRI Technology Commercialization Center Illinois Institute of Tech.

* Novak, Howard J. Control Data Technology Center Host Center: P.R.T.C.C. * Prat, James A SUS ORDENES, INC. Rural Enterprise Development Center

* Tomor, Emery L. Puerto Rico Technology Commercialization Center A .Sus Ordenes, Inc.

Fortuno-Itoosevett 66-Pcnce QUARTERLY REPORT Project A-3036-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

By Edwin A. Bethea, Project Director

Project Advisory Team Fred Cain Davis S. Clifton, Jr. Hans 0. Spauschus Hardy S. Taylor

Under Grant #98-10-80018-01

JUNE 1984

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY A Unit of the University System of Georgia Engineering Experiment Station Atlanta, Georgia 30332 1984 Quarterly Report April, May, and June 1984 Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-800 18-0 1 A-30 36-000

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER QUARTERLY REPORT

Edwin A. Bethea Research Scientist Project Director

Staff Advisory Team Fred L. Cain Director Electronics and Computer Systems Laboratory David S. Clifton, Jr. Director Economic Development Laboratory

Hans 0. Spauschus Director Energy & Materials Science Laboratory

Hardy S. Taylor Associate Director Economic Development Laboratory

This report was accomplished with financial assistance from the Minority Business Development Agency, U. S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations and other data in this report are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Department of Commerce. This material is the result of tax-supported research and as such is not copyrightable. It may be freely reprinted with the customary crediting of the source.

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Engineering Experiment Station Economic Development Laboratory Atlanta, Georgia 30 332 June 1984 Quarterly Report April, May, and June 1984 Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center #98-10-80018-01 A-30 36-000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION

WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER 3

Evaluation - Product Development and Commercialization Activities 3 Product/Venture Ideas 4

Technology Identification and Resource Searches for Minority-Owned Firms and Entrepreneurs 9

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 11 TUCC Administrative Activities 11

Support Staff Activities 13 TUCC Participating Firms' Activities 14 TUCC Networking Activities 15 Resource/Advisory Council Activities 16

PROGRAM ANALYSIS 17

ATTACHMENTS 18

A Response Letter from Honeywell Corporation regarding the Kibbie Kover (Kapsule)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

ATTACHMENTS (cont.) B Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of Cube XXX 3D Puzzle C Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of Compu-Call Computer Game D Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Portable Word Processor and Printer E Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Flash Card F Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Evaluation Report of the Space-drive Motor G Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Flex Clip • Cover Letters and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Automatic Animal Feeder I Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Handheld Pot Cleaner J Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Hand Physiotherapy Device • Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Assurance Sanitary Napkin

L The Preliminary Technical and Engineering Review of the Principle of Removing Paint from Windows and Mortar from Bricks in Newly Constructed Residential Buildings M A Parts List for Component to Build the Portable Cable Tester Prototype for Consolidated Industries N Status Report of the Progress of the Testing Program for the Shower Bath Economizer O Cover Letter, State of Work, and a Sample Copy of TUCC's Participating Agreement Submitted to Rolling Fleet Services P Program Agenda for the Meeting and Presentation for the Deputy MBDA Director and the Atlanta Regional Director Q Purpose and Agenda of the Meeting of the State of Georgia Representatives of Public and Private Management Assistance Organizations for Small Businesses

R Letter from Honeywell Regarding TUCC's Involvement of its Resource/Advisory Council Members to Assist its Participating Firms

APPENDIX

1 Newspaper Article from the Atlanta Constitution April 23, 1984 regarding Mr. Theron Bell's Visit to TUCC SMEARY

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) handled 40 client cases this quarter. Most of the new clients were referred from MBDA-funded organizations and a considerable number came from the Atlanta MBDA region. The number of TUCC participating firms increased and the staff is encouraging this trend. By focusing on this aspect of the program, TUCC believes the visibility of its accomplishments will be enhanced. The Center continued to strengthen its networking activities between itself and other MBDA-funded organizations. For example, TUCC signed a cooperative agreement with the Virginia State Office of Minority Business Enterprise and several requests from MBDCs in Virginia also were received, as well as those from MBDCs in the Atlanta MBDC region. The Center, with other Economic Development Laboratory programs, moved off campus to the Life of Georgia Building at West Peachtree Street and North Avenue. This move does not affect the Center's receiving mail; the mailing address remains the same. Because the program faced the possibility of not being refunded, the flow of program activity was interrupted. Although TUCC has learned that its operation will continue, the possible threat of losing our funding caused great alarm. The Center hosted simultaneous visits by the Deputy Director of the National Minority Business Agency, Mr. Theron Bell, and the newly appointed Atlanta Regional Office Director, Mr. Paul Jones. Both MBDA officials were briefed on the Technology Utilization and Commercialilation Center and the Rural Assistance Program. The relationship between the Programs and their effectiveness in meeting the objectives of the Minority Business Development Agency were also highlighted. In addition to our staff giving an oral presentation to Mr. Bell and Mr. Jones, a slide show was presented to them about the resources each program makes available to MBDA clients. They also had an opportunity to tour some of the facilities at the Engineering Experiment Station used by the programs. INTRODUCTION

This report describes the work performed during this quarter (April, May, and June 1984) by the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center. The report is divided into three major categories: WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, and PROGRAM ANALYSIS. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER is described under three main topics: Product Development and Commercialization Activities, Product/Venture Ideas, and Technology Identification and Resources Searches for Minority-Owned Firms and Entrepreneurs. The PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT section describes TUCC's administrative efforts, its plans, and its various interrelated activities involving TUCC support staff, advisory council members, TUCC participants, and other centers in the network. This section has six main topics: TUCC Administrative Activities, Support Staff Activities, TUCC Participating Firms' Activities, TUCC Networking Activities, and Resource/Advisory Council Activities. PROGRAM ANALYSIS, the final section of the report, describes the Director's view of the program's progress, its effectiveness, and its future. WORK PERFORMED DURING THIS QUARTER

Evaluation - Product Development and Commercialization Activities

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) serviced a total of 40 clients during this reporting period. The Center received and processed 12 new product/venture ideas from inventors and/or entrepreneurs asking us to perform preliminary technical and engineering evaluations on submissions. Four of these 12 requests were referrals from MBDA organizations within the region; three were from MBDCs and one was referred by the Kentucky State Office of Minority Business Enterprise (Ky- SOMBE); four other requests came from outside the Atlanta region (one was a referral from the Washington, D.C. regional office; and three were clients who contacted us after being referred by the National Office of the Minority Business Development Agency in Washington, D.C.). The remaining two clients originated from. TUCC's ongoing outreach and marketing efforts. The latter number is small because the Center's outreach and marketing efforts were interrupted when the Center concentrated its efforts on getting the program refunded. Preliminary technical and engineering evaluations were completed on 12 product/venture ideas. The evaluation reports have been mailed to these clients; five of them requested additional follow-on assistance; two others wanted the content of the report clarified; and the remaining five have not responded. Therefore, only two product/venture ideas were closed during this quarter. TUCC's technology identification and resource search activities increased during this quarter; three new minority-owned firms requested our service. One was referred by the new director of the MBDA Atlanta Regional Office, Mr. Paul Jones; one was referred by a TUCC support staff member; and one resulted from a previous contact made by the TUCC Director. All new firms were contacted during this quarter. Additionally, TUCC continues to work with all but one of the five minority-owned firms that were receiving assistance last quarter. TUCC completed its work for Delta Enterprise in Mississippi, and their file was closed.

-3- TUCC is helping three clients identify venture capital funds and is working with three MBDCs who have requested our services for product/venture ideas that appear to have good commercial potential. TUCC is advising these centers on how to obtain additional conclusive data that is needed before further development should proceed. The assistance given to both groups of clients is provided either directly by TUCC support staff, or by individuals participating in the TUCC Resource/Advisory Council.

Product/Venture Ideas

The following is a capsule description of the product/venture ideas received and processed assisted during this quarter.

Product/Venture Ideas Commercialized or Nearing Commercialization Kibbie Kapsule. TUCC's Resource/Advisory Council member representing the Honeywell Corporation responded to our request to assist the Kibbie Corporation in distributing his product line. The Honeywell representative informed us that the product was not a suitable match for their company's distribution system; however, they determined that the product was well manufactured and was an item needed by the oil industry. He told us who to contact in their corporate sales office to help link us with sales persons in the oil industry (Attachment A). Shortly after receiving Honeywell's letter, Mr. Pillette, the President of Kibbie Corporation, informed TUCC that he had made contact with company officials of a Texas oil equipment distributor who appeared extremely interested in acquiring his company. Mr. Pillette indicated he would keep us informed of the progress being made with consummating this arrangement.

Evaluations Completed Cube XXX Puzzle. This is a child/adult game puzzle composed of nine numbers arranged in squares so that the sum of any numbers arranged in each row and in any column, both diagonally and horizontally equals the same figure. The game uses nine cubes, placed in three rows vertically and horizontally. The player must arrange the numbers so the numbers in both rows equal 15. The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the game had good commercial potential. However, its commercial success greatly depended on the implementation of a good marketing strategy. The product/venture idea was referred to the Virginia Tidewater Minority Business Development Center (VTMBDC) for further assistance. Later the MBDC again requested our assistance with developing a market strategy. TUCC put them in touch with a consultant firm experienced in marketing toys and games. Additionally, TUCC indicated that it will become more involved once the marketing strategy is completed, and that it would explore Sears' interest in this product item (Attachment B). Compu-Call Computer (Football Game). This product/venture idea is a new type of computer football game. TUCC's preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product was unique enough to be considered good commercial potential; however, a great deal of computer design will be required. TUCC also indicated that our in-house resources can assist with design and development of this product idea. The referring MBDC was notified of our evaluation comments and was provided with a suggested approach they might wish to pursue in getting the work accomplished (Attachment C). Portable Word Processor and Printer. This product/venture idea was technically sound and could be engineered; however, the evaluation determined that the concept would encounter very - strong competition from large major corporations who were already geared up to produce, manufacture, and market similar type products. Therefore, the inventor's chances for commercial success appeared very slim (Attachment D). Flash Card (game). This is an educational game designed for and targeted to mentally retarded children. TUCC's preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the concept was sound; however, it is not a new technology. Before its commercial potential could be definitively determined it would have to undergo testing by potential users. This product/venture idea was also referred by the Va. Tidewater MBDC (Attachment E). Spacedrive Motor. This concept uses an electromagnetic field to produce rotary motion. Our review determined that the concept is not a new technology and is a process that is basic to the electric motor industry, and therefore, the product idea had no commercial potential (Attachment F). Flex Clip. This device may be used by professional and recreational- type bicyclists and would enable them to more easily remove their feet from the straps that hold their feet to the bike peddle. It's design and concept appears somewhat questionable. TUCC suggested that the inventor reconsider his concept and present us with a more descriptive design and explanation of this proposed device and its use (Attachment G). Automatic Animal Feeder. This product/venture idea referred for evaluation by the West Palm Beach, Florida MBDC is self explanatory. TUCC's preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product idea was technically sound, but its chances for commercialization success were about average. Additional engineering design would be necessary before prototypes could be built or definitive statements about its commercial potential can be made. Since the product idea is not new technology but rather a new product concept, TUCC suggested the inventor continue to work with the BDC. TUCC indicated that its resources would be available upon request (Attachment H). Handheld Pot Cleaner. The TUCC preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of this product idea determined that the concept is not new nor is it new technology. Similar products are already on the market and this concept, in our opinion did not present any new improvements; therefore, the concept had a poor chance for commercial success. This invention was also a referral from the West Palm Beach, Florida MBDC (Attachment I). Hand Physiotherapy Device. This product concept is a technology, developed in a Federal Laboratory. Several variations of this concept have been developed. TUCC's interest was in evaluating the multi-joint exercising device which is being redesigned and demonstrated. The product can be used in various government and private hospitals that treat

-6- individuals with hand breaks, arthritis and other hand ailments. The concept has had limited exposure and testing in several hospitals, but the results indicated that hospital staff saw a need for the product. TUCC is interested in determining the potential for minority firms' involvement in its manufacture and distribution, and knowing its development and licensing status. Thus far the outlook appears promising (Attachment J). Assurance Sanitary Napkins. The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the concept was not a new technology and had a very poor chance for commercialization. This concept was poorly conceived and could not compete with similar products already on the market (Attachment K). Principle of Removing Paint from Windows and Mortar from Brick in Newly Constructed Residential Building. A technical review of this concept determined that the inventor's idea was not described well enough for TUCC's evaluators to determine its soundness or its commercial potential (Attachment L).

Product/Venture Ideas and Technologies Undergoing Further Exploration Portable Colostomy Kit. TUCC's support staff maintained contact with the inventor to provide advice and information regarding the building of his prototype. The design drawings were already forwarded and he was provided with the company's name in his area that built the prototype for the Kibbie Kapsule. The prototype according to the inventor is scheduled to be completed by the end of July 1984. TUCC plans to have it demonstrated at the Veteran's Hospital in Atlanta. Automatic Portable Cable Tester. TUCC's support staff has completed the design work on this product and forwarded them to Consolidated Industries. Additionally they have compiled a parts list and provided it for the firm. As of June, the company had ordered all parts and is awaiting their return so building of the prototype can begin (Attachment

M ). Shower Bath Economizer. Site selections for testing the prototype have been completed and several devices have been installed. The

-7- evaluation and the product performance measurement tool have been agreed upon and monitoring of the product's performance is underway (Attachment N). Electric Mop. The inventor of this device contacted TUCC for additional assistance. He requested help with obtaining a patent. TUCC provided him with the names of two patent attorneys who could assist him with this endeavor.

Product/Venture Ideas Undergoing Review and Evaluation Temperature Control Sensor (for large computers). This concept is a device to alert individuals to possible overheating and breakdown of large computers due to overheating when the computer room thermostat malfunctions or operates improperly. Evaluation of this concept continues. Telescopic Rear View Mirror (for autos). This concept is an expanded design of a side-mounted rear-view mirror which would have a light guide medium to transmit changes in brake light intensity. Such a device would enable the driver of the third vehicle to know what is happening beyond the car in front of him, and would possibly help prevent a collision. Side-mounted Rear View Mirror with Brake Light and Turn Signal. This concept is a side-mounted, rear-view mirror modified to include brake and turn signal lights. Micro-wave Hot Water Heater. A hot water heater system utilizing microwave technology to heat water with a manual timer override. Lever Assemblies. This is a patented concept involving a unique "compound cantilever" principle of design and construction of any longitudinal structure. The apparatus can be used to construct more durable golf clubs, sailboat mast and looms antennae for home, land vehicles and boats, as well as vaulting poles, flag poles, among others. Aerodynamic Luggage Carrier. This is an auxiliary luggage carrier which is designed to fit within the rails of the luggage rack and over the front rails. No Nail Stake. This is a metal stake used in construction as an anchor for a 2"x 4" wood brace attached to concrete forms.

-8- Woodburning Stove Insert. This is an air-tight woodburning fireplace insert that controls the rate that the wood burns and the heated air temperature. This system claims to improve the heat transfer system. Radio Vision. This is a concept for designing a communication system to broadcast information (i.e., videotex, fastscan. TV, computer data, audio and facsimile transmission) over FM radio stations that can be picked up and viewed on television sets. The concept is a design of a receiver/converter that will be attached to the television set for accepting the broadcasted signal. It will be used in non-metropolitan areas.

Technology Identification and Resource Searches for Minority-Owned Firms and Entrepreneurs

Terry Manufacturing. A discussion with this company's president resulted in his allowing us to begin making plans to identify new product lines for the firm. Our immediate interest is insuring that the firm has enough long term contracts to allow TUCC to engage in a search for a realistic new product line for the company. TUCC contacted its Resource/Advisory Council Member at General Electric to explore possible contract opportunities for the company. Once these opportunities have been identified, TUCC support staff will begin identifying areas of interest of the firm and exploring new product lines outside the one the firm is engaging. Other TUCC Resource/Advisory Council _ Members are also being contacted. Consolidated Industries Inc.. In addition to the design work the center is performing for this firm, it is also exploring potential business opportunities and new methods of manufacturing printed circuit boards using new technological processes in wave soldering. The Rural Assistance Program resources were used to investigate this area of business/technology opportunity. Magnifico Inc.. This is a telephone distribution company located in Palmetto, Georgia. The owner, Mr. Joe Hartsfield, requested our assistance with modifying the existing video residential security system his firm is

-9- marketing. His request is to interface this system with a regular telephone so the system can be used both as a regular telephone and as a security system. TUCC arranged for Mr. Hartsfield to meet with TUCC's supportive staff communication engineers who indicated that they fully understand his request and state that his request can be accomplished with seemingly little difficulty. TUCC has requested that Mr. Hartsfield obtain approval for the modification from the owner of the patent. TUCC is awaiting his response. P&P Industries Inc.. TUCC continues to maintain telephone contact with this firm. They informed us that they have signed the contract with Viginia to produce the manufacturer's model of the work table but other details regarding its new design must be resolved. The President of the firm thinks these details will be concluded by the end of July 1984. Rolling Fleet Service. This firm is a contract fleet washing service located in Jackson, Mississippi. It was referred to TUCC by the Atlanta MBDA Regional Director, Mr. Paul Jones. This firm requested that we determine whether an automatic/robotic system could be designed and installed that would perform the same task as his labor force is handling manually. The owner believes using this new technology will reduce labor cost and improve the efficiency of his operations. The TUCC director and a support staff engineer visited the firm to see his operation and determined we could be of assistance. TUCC's support staff developed a proposed plan of action which included exploring whether robotic systems have been used to tackle similar- problems confronted by government entities. A review of the TECTRA newsletters revealed that NASA had designed a robotic system for washing debris from the nose cone of the Space Shuttle and it was available for licensing. Although their system is too sophisticated for this firm's use, TUCC's supportive engineering staff thinks a modified version of the system can by applied to this firm's problem. TUCC has developed a work plan and submitted it for the firm's approval (Attachment 0).

-10- PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

TUCC Administrative Activities

During this quarter, the Director of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center divided his time between responding to the needs of the center's clients, and familiarizing MBDA officials as well as the agency's grantees with the center's operations. Additionally the director participated in two seminars and assisted a minority SBA contractor with locating potential clients within the region that might be interested in attending the seminar, "How to Turn Around a Financially Troubled Company." The center's activities were temporarily interrupted because the Economic Development Laboratory, which houses the center, moved from the Georgia Tech campus to the Life of Georgia Office Building at West Peachtree Street and North Avenue. During the latter part of April the center's administrative activities were further interrupted by the shocking news that the National Technology Commercialization Program was being threatened with major revisions and the possibility of losing its funding. Despite these disruptions, the center continued to adequately supervise and coordinate the work being performed by its support staff and continued to respond to requests from various MBDA offices and its grantees. A more detailed account of the activities mentioned and other significant occurrences follows. During the very first week in April, Donald Powers, a staff person of the national office who is in charge of the TCC operation visited our center to gain direct knowledge of the program's operation and resources. The director spent two days becoming familiar with the center's operations; its networking activity between other TCCs and MBDA funded organizations; the interworking of the program's preliminary technical and engineering evaluation and commercialization procedures, and the role of the center's Resource/Advisory Council Members. It is our impression that Mr. Powell left with a better understanding of how the center works and its various activities with clients and other MBDA grantees and TCCs. Before leaving he expressed support for the center's activities. Shortly after Mr. Powell visited, the center was host to the Deputy Director of the National Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), Mr. Theron Bell, and the newly appointed Director of the Atlanta Regional MBDA Office. These MBDA officials spent a full day being briefed about the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center and the Rural Assistance Program; as well as being familiarized about the interrelationship of the two programs and how they complement each other. This center also gave them a tour of some of the major resources within the Engineering Experiment Station available to the center and to MBDA clients. Examples of the work that both centers were performing were also presented through slide presentations and discussions by support staff being utilized on the projects (Attachment P). At a lunchean meeting the MBDA official had an opportunity to talk with the Vice President for Research at Georgia Tech and other ranking administrative officials of the Engineering Experiment Station. In the afternoon, the guest had an opportunity to make statements to the press (Appendix 1). It appears that the presentations, the tours of the center's resources, and other briefings were well received by the visiting officials, and each of them appeared to be impressed; however, no strong commitment to the program was forthcoming. During the month of May a signed Cooperation Agreement between TUCC and the state of Virginia's Office of Minority Business Enterprise was completed. Later in June this agency visited TUCC. The representatives were briefed on the center's operation, familiarized with the resources available to us and had an opportunity to tour some of the EES facilities and talk with some of the TUCC supportive engineers that work with the type of clients they may refer. On May 21st the director attended a meeting/seminar arranged by the University of Georgia's Small Business Development Center of Private and Public Management Assistance Organization that provide management and technical assistance to small businesses. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and establish more effective ways of delivering assistance to clients of these organizations (Attachment Q). TUCC benefited from its participation especially since it received two referrals from participants

-12- and TUCC has had further follow-up discussions with others. During the early part of June, the TUCC director met with representatives of two venture capital firms, the First Jersey Securities Inc. and The Equitable Venture Capital Corporation. Both representatives expressed an interest in being informed about TUCC's clients and their business ventures. The director agreed to keep them informed of the center's activities and would alert them to possible ventures and clients that might be of interest to their organizations. During the latter weeks in June, the TUCC director met with The Atlanta Regional director to more candidly discuss the future of the Rural Assistance Program and the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center and explain the problems each program has and is encountering as well as give him a brief history of both programs evaluation. The director requested his support for the continued funding of both programs and emphasized the need to maintain the type of assistance we provide in this region. Additionally, the Regional director was assured that both programs could deliver the kind of accomplishments that would benefit the region and provide him the kind of visibility MBDA needed in this region.

Support Staff Activities

During this quarter the program activities have kept TUCC's supportive staff very involved, especially the staff engineers from the Electronic Computer Science Laboratory. The design work being performed by the staff in the Computer Technology and Applications Division for Consolidated Industries was completed and a parts list along with the design drawings for building the prototype of this firm's product/venture idea was forwarded in early May. Consolidated Industries can now begin to order parts and prepare to build its prototype (Attachment R). Additionally, the director and a staff member met with two TUCC clients who had product/venture ideas that needed technical and engineering reviewing. The concepts of both clients were felt to have merit and good commercial potential. Therefore the Communication Systems Division's

-1 3- staff, supportive of TUCC's activities, are working with both clients. The staff is evaluating the concept of Radiovision for Mr. Meredith and is developing a work plan that would modify an existing product being distributed by Magnifico. Support staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Economic Development Laboratory and the TUCC director visited a potential client in Jackson, Mississippi referred by the Atlanta Regional director. A review of the minority-owned firm, Rolling Fleet Services facilities and operation helped us determine that TUCC could assist with resolving this firm's problems. The support staff developed a plan of action and has submitted it to the client for his approval along with TUCC's Participating Agreement, a document, signed by and stating that each firm requests TUCC to perform product development work (Attachment 0). Staff from the Rural Assistance Program and the Industrial Extension Division also visited another farmer TUCC helps in South Carolina at the request of Mrs. Yvonne Conway, ARO's MBDA staff business development specialist for that state, who requested that TUCC determine the feasibility of this client's product for commercialization. TUCC had already performed a preliminary technical and engineering evaluation on this product venture idea "Central Heating Stove" and thinks it has only limited commercial potential. The MBDC in the area was having difficulty getting refunded and the MBDA staff wanted the client to have some assistance since no other service was available. This is one of numerous ways the Rural Assistance Program and Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center provide significant contributions. Support staff from other Engineering Experiment Station Laboratories continue to provide TUCC quality services in performing preliminary technical and engineering evaluations.

TUCC Participating Firms' Activities

Two new minority-owned firms were added to the list of TUCC's Participating Firms. One firm, Terry Manufacturing, has become more involved and is now requesting specific services. Magnifico, a minority

-14- firm distributing telephone and security systems to small and major firms, became involved in June. TUCC's handling of all cases has resulted in enthusiasm and cooperation from clients. The following is a list of potential and actual participating TUCC firms: Consolidated Industries P&P Industries Terry Manufacturing Rolling Fleet Services Kibbie Corporation Magnifico, Inc.

TUCC Networking Activities

The TUCC Director has made a concerted effort to improve the networking activities with other MBDA-funded organizations. TUCC provided staff members of the Virginia State office of Minority Business Enterprise (VA SOMBE) with a tour of the resources available to TUCC and showed two slide presentations which explained the resources. Additionally, the Center has received several referrals from the Virginia MBDC and is assisting one center with two of their clients, whose product/venture ideas have good commercial potential. The Center has received a sizeable number of referrals from clients within the Atlanta MBDA region, requesting preliminary technical and engineering evaluations of their clients product/venture ideas. However, very few were concepts that warranted further involvement by TUCC. The West Palm Beach, Florida MBDC referred three potential clients, the Savannah, Georgia MBDC referred two inventors; the Kentucky State Office MBDE referred one client; and the ARO referred two clients. The National Office of MBDA referred at least six potential clients; however, several have not responded to requested information about their inventions. A total of eight TCCs requested preliminary technical and engineering evaluations for their clients. The Centers requesting services were: the Puerto Rico TCC, the New York TCC, and the Illinois Institute of Technology TCC.

-15- Resource/Advisory Council Activities

Various members of the Resource/Advisory Council continue to actively participate. Honeywell and General Electric lead the group of Resource/Advisors that are involved. The representative from TVA continues to refer potential clients and is still providing site testing and monitoring services regarding the product/idea "Shower Bath Economizer." The General Electric representative referred Richard Stanford, a potential client who is interested in obtaining a "spin off" product line from GE in the area of light electric motor assembly products. Mr. Stanford is presently a manager with a major corporation and is interested in setting up his own manufacturing firm. His credentials are superb and TUCC has agreed to assist him (Attachment T). PROGRAM ANALYSIS

The TUCC program has operated somewhat smoothly despite the refunding problems. Although this issue is still unresolved at the writing of this report, the Center continues to work effectively with its clients. It also seems that the program is still somewhat misunderstood by key persons within MBDA, but the Director is making great strides in correcting this situation by meeting with government officials. It is the Director's opinion that the Program's main emphasis should be the expansion of minority-owned firms through the development of new technological processes and equipment to increase productivity. Although the Center should continue to perform preliminary; technical and engineering evaluations, it should concentrate on performing these tasks for inventions that have the potential of contributing to start-up, expansion and productivity of minority firms. Working with clients at this phase of the process will take less time and reap more immediate results, and the Program will be in a better position to secure new clients. ATTACHMENTS

-18- Attachment A

Response Letter from Honeywell Corporation regarding the Kibbie Kover (Kapsule) Honeywell

STEPHEN F. HIRSHFELD, Ph.D. Manager Corporate Business Planning

June 4, 1984

Mr. Edwin Bethea, Director Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) Georgia Institute of Technology Engineering Experiment Station Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Dear Ed: This letter covers the content of our recent phone conversation regarding Kibbie Pillette's nibbie Rover*. Honeywell's Process Control Division (PCD) had reviewed the material provided by Kibbie Pillette to assess fit with our existing product lines.

I spoke with Joseph Clarke, Vice President for Field Instruments and Sales. He informed me that the evaluation of the *Kibbie Rover* was very positive and that it was viewed as a well-conceived, innovative product. It, however, falls outside our sphere of emphasis and would be more effectively utilized or distributed by companies active in selling equipment to firms involved in oil exploration. This connection could give Mr. Pillette the needed distribution outlets to grow his business prior to other companies introducing comparable offerings. Mr. Clarke suggested that Mr. Pillette call Larry Koppel of PCD at 215-641-3775. We will gladly answer any questions Kibbie might have and make suggestions on individuals or companies he may want to contact. I believe this information could be of help and may facilitate Kibbie's pursuit of a distribution arm. Please let me know if I can be of help with any other TUCC clients.

Best Wishes,

SFH:kar

cc: Mr. Kibbie Pillette

HONEYWELL INC., HONEYWELL PLAZA, P.O. BOX 524, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55440. TELEPHONE 612/870-6611 Attachment B

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of Cube XXX 3D Puzzle THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

May 22, 1984

Mr. Harold A. Stallings, Jr. Business Development Specialist The Tidewater Area Business and Contractors Association Inc. 2601-A Chestnut Avenue Newport News, Virginia 23607

Dear Mr. Stallings:

Enclosed is • the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's (TUCC) preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report of Americubes Cubexx Puzzle. The TUCC evaluation determined that the product Idea is technically sound and no engineering problems are forseen. The evaluation also determined that the product has relatively good commercial potential.

Your referral letter requested that TUCC provide the inventor with marketing assistance to get his product into the marketplace, and we can respond to your request. TUCC can provide the inventor with an introduction to Sears Roebuck's national office, but the inventor must compile certain information so that It can be used in a "New Product's" presentation package. Therefore TUCC request your involvement in helping him/her gather the information and send it to us.

Enclosed, as an attachment, is an outline of the information that is needed and explination of what, why and how it should be arranged. We are requesting that you assist the inventor with gathering and preparing this information. After It has been obtained and compiled please forward it to us for our review and packaging. Before the package is sent to Sears, It will be forwarded to you and the Inventor for approval. I am certain that we will need to schedule some meeting between you and the inventor to discuss plans of presentation and strategies while all of this is in progress. Therefore we are available to meet with all parties involved in Atlanta or Newport News at your suggestion.

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency TUCC thinks our working together can successfully assist this inventor to commercialize his product. Thank you for referring Mr. Kang. Should you have questions about the evaluation or the attached material and information requested; please contact me, weekdays between 8:30a.m. and 4:30p.m. at (404) 894-3833. The inventor has not received a copy of this evaluation.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

cc: Joyce R. Kang enclosure

EAB/dk Preliminary Technical Evaluation of Cubexx Puzzle Americubes - Inventor Referred by TABCA - MBDC

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the product idea Cubexx Puzzle was performed by staff of the Industrial Extension Division of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and it's commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is not an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary:

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product Cubexx Puzzle is technically a sound idea and can be engineered. The product also appears to have good commercial potential.

Evaluation Analysis

The technical aspects of the product is well conceived. It performs according to the descriptive claims and appears to be a product that would interest audiences who attempted unsucessfully to master the Rubic Cube Puzzle. It can also serve as an educational toy or puzzle.

The product can be easily engineered. Raw material for manufacturing is readily available and exist in abundance. No equipment manufacturing problems are forseen. The product's present packaging arrangement seems adequate although improvement can be made. However there is no need to modify the present packaging at this time.

May 1984 Timing the introduction of product is important. The timeliness of getting this product on the market appears very appropriate. According to the September 1983 issue of Playthings, a trade magazine for toys and games, the peaking of the video game surge has caused retailers to begin an increased concentration on board and action games. The trend appears to be again going toward multi-player involvement type games. Although Cubexx is not technically a game, it can be considered a multi- player involvement type toy; making it suitable for consideration by toy retailers. Additionally, the product may also be able to capatilize on it's international aspects. This could be a unique advantage since it's orgin is Chinese and this country now has a growing interest in Chinese artifacts and cultural things.

Recommendations

TUCC recommends that the product be introduced through large department stores or game speciality outlets; there-by giving the inventor the opportunity to utilize the resources and advertising expertise of these stores in marketing the product.

TUCC further suggest that the symbol of the turtle used on Americubes, stationary, be incorporated somewhere on the package containing the product. This would more closely tie it to it's origin. Finally a brief summary of the relationship of the diamonds on a turtle to the puzzle might also be of interest to the customer.

The product may face considerable competition when placed close to the high interesting geometric-type puzzles. Along this line, educational toy shops would be good markets for the puzzle. Americans might be quite interested in the Chinese connection, as illustrated on page 16 of the March, 1984, issue of Entrepreneur.

The inventor should contact appropraite associations if he has not already done so. Two are listed below:

New Games Foundation (NGF) National Puzzlers' League P.O. Box 7901 325 Middlesex Road San Francisco, CA 94120 Buffalo, NY 14216 Phone: (415) 664-6900 Phone: (716) 876-3227

May 1984 Attachment C

Cover Letters and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of Compu-Call Computer Game THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

May 25, 1984

Mr. H.A. Stallings, Jr. Business Development Analyst The Tidewater Area Business and Contractors Association Inc. 2601-A Chestnut Avenue Newport News, Virginia 23607

Dear Mr. Stallings,

Enclosed is a copy of The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's (TUCC) preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report of Compu-Call. The evaluation determined that the product idea is technically sound and it can be engineered. The product also appears to have commercial potential however a preliminary market study needs to be performed to determine whether similar products exist. This is also needed to help the inventor and us determine how the prototype should be developed.

TUCC is willing to meet with you and the inventor to construct a work plan for implementing these task with the inventor, your organization and us. At the meeting we could also discuss and decide what roles each will play in helping the inventor develop his product and eventually get it in the marketplace.

Again, thank you for referring Mr. Holmes and we look forward to working with you in the near future.

Sincerely, 7,cu.) L_ Q Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Compu-Call Computer Johnny L. Holmes-Inventor Referred by TABDC - MBDC

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the product idea Compu-Call computer concept was performed by staff of the Electronic Computer systems Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endor'sement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of "Compu-Call Computer" concept determined that the product idea is technically sound and can be engineered. Additionally the evaluation determined that the concept also has positive commercial potential, however a considerable amount of product development and market exploration is necessary to definitively determine its real commercial potential.

Evaluation Analysis

The product idea's development work appears to be straightforward to implement and in view of the widespread popularity of football may have good market potential. The engineering product design needs to be further developed and may be somewhat costly. A prototype needs to be developed. Two aspects need to be considered, construction of an entirely new structure and software system, or the use of existing computer "mainframes" that can be modified to fit the needs of this concept.

May 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency The Keyboard shown in the description is not ergonomically sound and could be improved considerably to make the product easier to use.

The inventor needs to consider whether he would use a printer or display screen to show the results. This may be an added selling asset to the product since the player has something concrete to show the results of his skills and knowledge of the game.

Although TUCC's evaluators made no attempt to perform detailed analysis of the practicality of the inventor's design nor did we try to uncover any design "bugs" superficially the concept appears to be straightforward to implement. Therefore there appears to be no inherent technical and engineering obstacles which would preclude the concepts from being developed and eventually commercialized. Caution should be taken however, to explore the market and other similar products already on the market to determine its real commercial potential.

May 1984 THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

May 25, 1984

Mr. Johnny L. Holmes P.O. Box 6402 Newport News, Virginia 23601

Dear Mr. Holmes:

Thank you for being patient. The attached preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report determined that your product idea was technically sound, can be engineered and has possible commercial potential. It also determined that the product concept is a long way from being commercialized. A great deal of time and funds (money) will be needed to get this product idea implemented.

Therefore we suggest that you should consider getting the Tidewater Area Business Development Center involved. The three of us then may be able to assist you get the resources you will need to get your idea produced and marketed.

TUCC recommends that you investigate whether the idea is patentable; we could direct you to patent attorney's if you do not already have one. Our next recommendation is that you have a preliminary market study performed. Maybe the Business Development Center might assist you in this task.

Then funds will be needed to build a prototype; that's the next problem to tackle. There are several other task to complete, but they can be identified and discussed once these are in process.

TUCC is willing to work with the Business Development Center and assist you and them if you decide this is what you think will be helpful.

TUCC apologizes for the long delay in responding to your request, but the length of time could not be avoided.

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Again we thank you for your patience and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

__LI0,3L,, Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

cc: H.A. Stallings

EAB/dk Attachment D

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Portable Word Processor and Printer THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

May 28, 1984

Dr. Robert 3. Yancy P.O. Box 8122 Southern Tech Station Marietta, Georgia 30060

Dear Dr. Yancy:

I am very sorry that our response to your request took this long, however it was unavoidable. The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that your product idea is technically sound. The technology is available to build the product, however, in our opinion your chances for making it become a commercial success is very limited. TUCC is aware of too many similar products, already on the market or that are about to enter the market. These products are produced by large well staffed, highly capitalized and well organized wide spread distribution channels. The competition appears too formidable for a newcomer.

TUCC has enclosed two articles describing examples of the competition an independent inventor would face. We hope we have been of assistance.

Sincerely, Q (4Zr---- Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate 43c TUCC Director

EAB/dk

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Portable Word-Processor & Printer Dr. Robert Yancy - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Portable Word-Processor Printer concept was performed by staff of the Electronic Computer System Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary

The technical and engineering evaluation of your product idea the Portable Word Processor Printer determined that the product idea is technically sound, and can be engineered. The idea however is conceived somewhat late and therefore its chances of becoming a commercial success appears very limited.

Evaluation Analysis

The product idea from an engineering perspective is realistic and can be developed and manufactured. However with a number of major manufacturers expecting to put similar products on the market, TUCC questions whether an independent, new corner can compete. TUCC has no idea about what market niche could be captured.

In order to bring this product to market a great deal of up-front capital will be required to develop the software and the hardware. Additionally, it is our opinion that any features that would give the proposed system a market edge could easily be incorporated into one of the existing or near existance systems on or coming to the marketplace. May 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency There are several similar products on the market. The Apple He has a "flip-up" screen which is presently a CRT with LCD announced for this summer. Radio Shack has a similar product with a half-screen display: Galvin has a similar product. These are all well established companies that would be formidable competition for any newcomer.

It is our opinion that the idea is definitely good, however it is about two years behind current technology.

May 1984 Attachment E

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Flash Card THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

April 25, 1984

Mr. H.A. Stallings Jr. Business Development Analyst The Tidewater Area Business and Contractors Association Inc. 2601-A Chestnut Avenue Newport News, Va. 23607

Dear Mr. Stallings:

Please accept our apology for the delay in responding. As with most government funded programs with limited staff and questionable refunding circumstances, our efforts are sometimes forced to be concerned with aspects of staying in business so we can respond to the needs of clients and requestors. Again we regret the delay.

Mrs. Hawkins, product concept is technically sound, it can be manufactured, and appears to have some commercial potential. However, it will probably run into heavy competition from other learning tools used by it's clients. Therefore the need for it must be established in order to attract capital to help commercialize the product. TUCC suggests that the inventor develop some prototypes and test them locally. The inventor or the MBDC should contact persons in an educational institutions and ask them to use the product, on a free basis, provided they keep records of its performance. Once test results are obtained and they are positive, the inventor can then consider expanding his effort to get the product commercialized. TUCC is willing to advise in this effort if our assistance is needed. One sure way to know whether the product has commercial potential is test it. If it works as expected, good; if it does not re-evaluate it and redesign the product. Then re-test the new design.

The inventor should understand that the more convienced others are of the product's worth and need; the better its chances are for attracting interest and support. However, to obtain data to convience others is a time consuming task but one that has to be performed.

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Thank you for referring your client, I hope we have been of assistance. Please let us know, what action you plan to take. Our interest is in being a quality and responsive resource to you and your client.

Thank you again for requesting our assistance.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate dc TUCC Director

EAB/dk THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Engineering Preliminary Technical Evaluation of FLASH CARD PUZZLE HAWKINS - INVENTOR Referred By Tidewater Area Business and Contractors Association

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the product concept "Flash Card Puzzle" was performed by staff of the Economic Development Laboratory, of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is not an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

EVALUATION SUMMARY The technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product/venture idea, "FLASH CARD PUZZLE", a product concept designed as an education tool for handicap children, is innovative and unique. It is technically sound and can be manufactured. The designed approach appears to be suitable to accomplish it's objective. It's commercial potential, however, can not be definitively determined without developing a working model and test sampling the product on the users.

EVALUATION ANALYSIS

The product idea appears to have utility. Any product directed at a specialized market; needs to make sure that the market size is large enough to allow for profitable return on his/her investment including the cost to develop the product idea.

May 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Therefore the product's success will depend upon the market size, it's acceptability by the end user (mentally retarded population) and the purchasers price. Testing the products capability to perform adequately and accomplish it's objectives are primary to its success.

The product can be easily manufactured, wood or paper is probably a good beginning material to use in constructing prototypes. Both are easy to purchase, easily designed to specifications and relatively inexpensive to modify when changes are required. Once the product's performance has been adequately tested and recorded production models can then be constructed using more desirable materials. Packaging the product and readying it for market penetration and distribution is the next task to undertake. At this point additional asthetic features can be added. Plastic is probably the best material for constructing the manufacturing model.

Recommendations

Prior to recommending any of the above activities, the inventor, needs to have a workable prototype constructed; then request some potential uses to test the prototype effectiveness, keep records of the results as well as whether the instructions are suitable to accomplish the objectives envisioned.

The prototype probably needs to be tested against a control group using other learning or teaching tools that propose to accomplish the same as Flash Card. The length of time to accomplish the desired learning objective should be measured. How rapidly comprehension is obtained and retained should also be measured. Consideration of any other related measuring standards that can help distinguish "Flash Cards" advantages from present techniques of learning and tool should be recorded. Good records should be kept on both Flash Cards and the learning tools used by the control group.

May 1984 Attachment F

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Evaluation Report of the Space-drive Motor THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

May 28, 1984

Mr. Alvin Chevalier, President Spacedrive Inc. 4311 Ebbtide Houston, Texas 77045

Dear Mr. Chevalier:

Enclosed is the technical and engineering evaluation report of your product "Spacedrive Motor". Returned also is the information you submitted. The evaluation determined that the concept is not new technology, but appears to be related to existing technology. It is also our opinion that the product concept, as TUCC's evaluator understood it, has no commercial potential.

Thank you for submitting your concept. We hope we have been of assistance. Should you have questions about the evaluation results, please call me weekdays between 8:30am and 4:30pm; at (404) 894-3833.

Sincerely,

--rttA) Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate at TUCC Director

EAB/dk

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Space Drive Motor Submitted by Alvin J. Chevalier - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Space Drive Motor concept was performed by staff of the energy and Material Science Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and it's commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of "Space Drive Motor" determined that the product idea is not new. The concept is sound, however the inventor's indulgence in very illuminating technical terms somewhat interferred with our ability to understand the utility of his product idea. It is therefore TUCC's opinion that the concept, as described, has no commercial potential.

Evaluation Analysis The concept of utilizing electromagnetic fields to produce rotary motion is a known, technology, basic to the electric motor industry (see attached article). The basic functional idea of the inventor appears to be simular to a permanent-magnet motor. Permanent-magnetic, brushless motors all require input power in order to cut the flex fields and hence produce rotor torque, however it is difficult to relate this to the inventors concept.

May 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency It is TUCC's opinion that the inventor needs to more clearly describe his concept with less technical terminology. From the terminology used it is difficult to definitively evaluate the concept for known causes and effects as it relates to power sources.

May 1984 Attachment G

Cover Letter, Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report, of the Flex Clip THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

May 28, 1984

Mr. Brent Monk 939 Piedmont Rd. N.E. Apt. 4 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Dear Mr. Monk: Enclosed is the preliminary technical and engineering review report of your product idea "Flex Clip." The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) was unable to perform the preliminary evaluation but did review the material and provided an opinion. The information submitted was insufficient to perform a complete technical and engineering evaluation of the product idea.

Our opinion is that the idea has only a very limited chance for commercial success. However this opinion is based on the sketchy information submitted. Therefore this could change if more detailed information is reviewed and evaluated.

TUCC is also returning the material you submitted on your product idea. Should you have questions about the report, please contact Edwin A. Bethea at (404) 894-3833 between 8:30am and 4:30pm weekdays.

Sincerely, — Cl Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate dc TUCC Director

EAB/dk

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Flex Clip Brent Monk - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Flex Clip Concept was performed by staff of the Economic Development Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and it's commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary A review of the material received from the inventor determined that the information was insufficient to perform a preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the product idea. Neither could TUCC determine wheter the idea had any commercial potential. However, the reviewers did express an opinion about the product concept and its usefullness.

Review Analysis The material submitted did not provide the reviewers with enough detailed description about the product's structure and how it would be attached to the bicycle's peddle. The drawings should show how it would function. (be removed or be detached from the bikers foot when it becomes necessary to stop.)

Several questions about the product's usefullness arise, as well as what segment of the total market the product idea is directed toward.

o Does this device fit the bicycle peddle and the bikers foot the same way existing foot clips fit? If not, the inventor needs to show the difference between his design and others. Also, the advantages need to be shown in the design and in the description of the product.

May 1984 A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency o Is the product concept a substitute for existing products or will they be competition for existing products?

o Is the product idea directed to a specific segment of the market or toward the general biking population?

The information submitted appears to imply that the device is directed toward the "casual" or "recreational" bikers, who make frequent stops. Our concern is whether this type of customer will want to purchase this accessory.

If the product idea is designed for serious bikers (racers) the same question arises, since racers do not have the need to make frequent stops. The information submitted seems to indicate who this device is aimed toward casual or recreational bikers. TUCC's concern is whether this type of biker will have the desire or see the need to purchase this accessory. If the device is intended for both the casual biker and the more serious biker, we still raise the same question.

Bicycle clips are generally accessories used by bicycle racers to maintain control of their peddling and prevent their feet from slipping off the peddle. Our investigation indicates that they are not usually found on bicycles sold to the general public. Therefore its usefulness and need for the general biker becomes questionable.

The inventor must present his concept in more detail. Drawing should show its function, and how it will be desinged and attached to the peddle as well as how it will fit on the user.

May 1984 Attachment H

Cover Letters and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Automatic Animal Feeder THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

June 11, 1984

Mr. fry Herbert 301 West 22nd Street Riviera Beach, Florida 33404

Dear Mr. Herbert:

Enclosed is the Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of your product/venture idea, the "Automatic Animal Feeder". The evaluation determined that the product idea is technically sound, but a great deal of engineering and design work will be required to get the product "market ready". Additionally TUCC is returning the material and information you submitted for the evaluation. The commercial potential of your idea is rated only average, because the data you submitted did not include sufficient information about competitive products, demand or market size. TUCC's evaluators are certain that animal feeders exist, perhaps not designed in the same fashion as yours, but TUCC is certain that some are already on the market.

Although your product idea is innovative it is not new technology nor a new technological device; therefore it is outside the scope of our program TUCC can not become directly involved with assisting you get your product to the marketplace. TUCC will however be glad to assist the Minority Business Development Agency, if they decide to help you further develop and commercialize your product.

A copy of the evaluation will be sent to Mr. Gerald Adams and he can advise us of his decision. We hope our assistance has been helpful. Should you have questions about the evaluation please call (404) 894-3833 weekdays between 8:30am and 4:30pm.

Sincerely,

406.4J4--- tr Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate TUCC Director

EAB/dk

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

June 9, 1984

Mr. Gerald Adams West Palm Beach MBDC Forum Bldg. Towers A 1673 Palm Beach Lake Blvd. Suite 1002 West Palm Beach, Fla. 33401

Dear Mr. Adams:

Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report performed for Mr. Icy Herbert. The evaluation determined that his concept "Automatic Animal Feeder" is technically sound but a great deal of marketing information as well as engineering and design work will be required before its real commercial potential can be determined.

Additionally, the product idea concept is not new technology but it is a new innovation and probably has about an average chance of being commercially successful. Thus, since it is not new technology TUCC can not provide the inventor direct commercialization assistance, however we are willing to assist your organization with helping the inventor get this product developed and into the marketplace.

The development of the product idea will require design drawing, marketing studies to determine its need, market size and engineering drawing. Our recommendation is that a preliminary market study be first conducted to determine need or product demand.

Should you have questions about the evaluation report please call (404) 894-3833 weekdays between 8:30pm and 4:30pm. Thank you for the referral and we look forward to our continued relationship.

Sincerely, F.44.0:.- a a.J.Vz.-__ Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate dc TUCC Director

Enclosure

EAB/dk

A Program of the U.S. Deportment of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Automatic Animal Feeder Iry D. Herbert - Inventor referred by West Palm Beach, Florida MBDC

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Automatic Animal Feeder" concept was performed by staff of the Economic Development Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary

The Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of the "Automatic Animal Feeder" concept determined that the product is technically sound, however it will require more detailed engineering and design. No technical problems are forseen in developing the concept. The commercial success of this product is rated average, however its potential may be greater, but no supportive information was submitted that enabled the evaluators to make a more definitive statement about its commercial potential.

Evaluation Analysis

The Automatic Animal Feeder concept is not new technology. it is a unique and innovative idea. In order to determine the commercial potential of this product idea more detail engineering drawing and design work will be required. Additionally more information about its potential market is also need.

June 1984 A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency It appears that new dies and molds must be purchased for manufacturing the product idea. It can be designed structurally sound and manufactured. It will require special packaging. It is suggested that the design and engineering be performed by a firm interested in the manufacture of the product, which will enable the innovator to take advantage of their equipment and experience.

The commercial success of this product idea will depend upon marketing efforts and information. Although the products end users are well defined, the demand for the product is unknown and must be determined. Additionally, since there are competing products already on the market a full scale market study is suggested before building a prototype or constructing a manufacturer's model.

The TUCC evaluation foresaw no engineering problems arising in the development or the manufacture of this product idea. Further, the product concept will not require substantial technical support, no specialist will be required for its use, nor will the product require technical servicing. Raw materials are readily available for its manufacture and only traditional tooling and ties are required for its manufacture. Our awareness of the aforementioned aspects of the product's development and commercialization concerns are the basis for giving this product idea only an average chance for commercial success.

June 1984 Attachment I

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report, of the Handheld Pot Cleaner THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

June 6, 1984

Mr. Try Herbert 301 West 22nd Street Riviera Beach, Florida 33404

Dear Mr. Herbert:

Enclosed is the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's (TUCC) preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report. Enclosed also is the information you submitted for evaluation of your product idea. The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report determined that the product idea Automatic Hand Held Pot Cleaner is technically a sound idea, but it is not new technology, but a variation of existing technology. The commercial success of the product is dependent upon the existing competition, market size and channels of distribution.

Since the product- idea is not new technology, TUCC can not become directly involved with assisting you get your product idea to the market, however, we can assist the local business development center if they decide to help you develop and commercialize this concept. We will send the results of our evaluation to Mr. Adams and let him know of our willingness to assist him with getting your product idea commercialized.

We hope we have been of assistance. Should you have questions about the evaluation, please call (404) 894-3833 between 8:30a.m. and 4:30p.m.

Sincerely,

( Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

cc: Gerald Adams

Enclosures

EABAik

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Aliarua. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Hand held Pot Cleaner Submitted by fry Herbert - Inventor The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Hand held Pot Cleaner" concept was performed by staff of the Economic Development Laboratory of The Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and it's commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to Imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary

The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's (TUCC) preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product Idea Is not new technology. The product idea is technically sound and can be engineered and manufactured. TUCC can not determine the product idea's commercial success potential without the results of either a preliminary or complete market study, however we are aware of similar products already on the market; (see attached) for household use. The products that are already on the market, are not designed for this specific application.

Evaluation Analysis

The product idea is not new to the marketplace, but is a variation of other simular tools that perform the same basic function. The inventors concept will require additional engineering and design of the motor power and parts before a prototype can be constructed. The concept may be feasible as a business venture, however it is

A Program of the U.S. Deportment of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency suggested that information be gathered about competing products and market sizes before any effort is directed toward the technical and engineering aspects of developing the product concept.

Additionally the inventor should determine whether the product is going to be used by households or by commercial facilities; since the design and engineering aspect could be different. Further, a determination also should be made about the products need and where this need exist. Attachment J

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Hand Physiotherapy Device THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

June 21, 1984

Mr. Donald E. Barthlome Bardon Enterprises Inc. 313 Orange Plank Road Hampton, Virginia 23669

Dear Mr. Barthlome:

Enclosed is the Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of your Hand Physiotheraphy Device. Also returned is the material you supplied for its evaluation. The evaluation determined that the product idea is technically sound, and no engineering or design problems are foreseen in its development. Its commercial potential appears good, however an active sales and marketing effort will probably be necessary as well as demonstration of a manufacturers model if commercial success is to be realized. The Technology Utilization and Corn mercializtion Center thinks that further development is warrented and will be willing to assist if its services are requested.

I can be reached at (404) 894-3833 weekdays between 8:30a.m. and 4:30p.m.

Sincerely,

G ( .1-L7C- Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate dc TUCC Director

EAB/dk.

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Hand Physiotherapy Device Submitted by Donald Barthiome - Inventor

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the Hand Physiotherapy Device concept was performed by staff of the Bioresearch Division, Electronic Computer Science Laboratory of the Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Hand Physiotheraphy Device" determined that the product idea is technically sound and can be engineered. Although additional development is required its commercial potential appears good and needed.

Evaluation Analysis

The development and engineering aspects of the product is well conceived. It is designed to meet a specific need that has been identified and defined. The concept is simple and appears applicable to several points in the human body. However, it is suggested that efforts be concentrated on refining the design of the finger flexor so that prototypes can be fully developed and evaluated. This is suggested because materials

June 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency that were submitted seem to indicate that concurrent efforts on units for various points were being designed and developed and the fragmentation in efforts was obvious.

There appears to be no competing devices already on the market which gives this product idea a distinct advantage since supportive statement indicate its need.

Materials needed to fabricate a prototype and subsequently a production unit should be readily available from commercial sources. Therefore there appears to be no need for developing new technology in order to manufacture this product idea.

The life cycle of the device should be acceptably long and there appears to be no components that will require frequent replacement. Further no specialized staff are needed to operate the unit, operation can easily be handled by the patient or user; which is an added benefit.

TUCC has not researched whether the product idea will require FDA approvals, however the extent to which such regulations have to be met will influence the feasibility of developing the device.

TUCC's assessment of this product idea is that further development of this device is warrented in view of its uncomplicated design, the apparent need and relatively low projected cost.

June 1984 Attachment K

Cover Letter and Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report of the Assurance Sanitary Napkin THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

June 27, 1984

Ms. Antoinette Mitchell 1231 E. 39th Street Savannah, Georgia 31404

Dear Ms. Mitchell:

Enclosed is the preliminary technical and engineering evaluation report of your idea the "Assurance Sanitary Napkin". Additionally we are returning the material you submitted for review and evaluation of both concepts.

The Assurance Sanitary Napkin's commercial potential appears very poor. The idea appears to be a variation in design of existing products. And the changes that you are considering are not drastic technical differences. Therefore the changes suggested will not make a significant difference in customer usage of existing products.

"Kurl Kap" underwent only the review process because it was determined that the idea had less of a commercial chance of success than the Assurance Sanitary Napkin. Therefore it is our opinion that neither product idea has good commercial potential.

Should you have questions about the evaluation report or the review comments, please call. I can be reached at (404) 894-3833. Weekdays between 8:30a.m. and 4:30p.m.

Sincerely,

Edwin A. BeBethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director cc: Rosalyn Truitt

Enclosures

EAB/dk

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Assurance Sanitary Napkin Submitted by Antoinette Mitchell - Inventor Referred by Savannah - MBDC

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Assurance Sanitary Napkin" concept was performed by staff of the Economic Development Laboratory of The Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in no way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation determined that the product idea "Assurance Sanitary Napkin" concept is interesting, but not very different from existing products already on the market. The reason given for improving the product is sound, but the approach to resolving the problem is questionable. Although the product idea can be engineered, the concept as designed, in our opinion, has no chance of penetrating the market and a poor chance for commercial success.

June 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Evaluation Analysis

The product idea is not new technology, and only a variation in design of existing products. No technical changes in the product's absorption capability was described. Increasing the napkins thickness does not constitute increased absorption capability neither does folds and tapered sides improve the product idea. Additionally increasing the thickness of the pad may cause discomfort to the user.

Further, the product idea is very simular to sanitary napkins already on the market with only a slight variation in design; therefore unless the concept is patentable, the variation could be easily copied by producers of the existing products. In order to determine the validity of the claims regarding thickness and absorption a prototype must be developed and evaluated.

The commercial potential of this product idea appears very poor. Commercial chances for the product may improve if the product receives a patent, however, even then it is facing substantial odds for becoming a commercial success since government approval will be required. The ideas may address a very needed problem, however the approach to resolving the problem, is more complex than the solution presented.

Research of such a product may already have determined the most comfortable napkin size and absorption capacity. Therefore improvements are restricted to its capability to prevent leakage. The trend these days appears toward a thinner napkin with better absorption capability.

June 1984 Attachment L

The Preliminary Technical and Engineering Review of the Principle of Removing Paint from•Windows and Mortar from Bricks in Newly Constructed Residential Buildings THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia '10132

June 27, 1984

Mr. Edward Stovall, Jr. 6515 Forest Road Columbus, Georgia 31907

Dear Mr. Stovall:

Enclosed is The Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center's Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation Report. The evaluators could not provide an opinion about the soundness of your idea because they were unable to determine what you were proposing. They did not know whether you have a good business venture idea or whether you were requesting assistance with developing a new process.

Should you wish to meet with us to discuss the matter further and clarify your concept, please call and I will arrange a meeting at your convenience. TUCC is also returning the material you submitted for the evaluation.

We are sorry we could not be of more assistance. Hook forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

syttot:- Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate dc TUCC Director

Enclosure

EAB/dk

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia Institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

Preliminary Technical and Engineering Evaluation of Principle of Removing Paint from Windows and Mortor from Bricks of New Residential Buildings Submitted by Edward Stovall

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation of the "Principle of Removing Paint and Mortor from New Residential Buildings" concept was performed by staff of the Energy & Materials Science Laboratory Staff of The Engineering Experiment Station at the request of the Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC). The evaluation focused on determining the technical and engineering soundness of the inventor's concept and its commercial potential. The information contained in this evaluation is in now way intended as an endorsement nor is it meant to imply endorsement. Further it cannot be used for advertising purposes on behalf of this particular product or concept.

Evaluation Summary and Analysis

The preliminary technical and engineering evaluation performed, determined your idea "The Principle of Removing Mortor from Bricks and Lucite from Window? was unclear. The evaluators could not determine what your concept (principle) proposed. Are you inventing a new cleaning solvent, a new method of cleaning windows or is your concept recognition of a need for establishing a business service? There already exist companies that specialize in cleaning windows (removal of paint from newly constructed facilities) and cleaning exterior buildings utilizing high pressure steam and blasting processes.

The chemical equasions cited in your material are interesting, but do not indicate what techniques, mixture will be applied for brick or windows and the probable success in accomplishing the prescribed task.

June 1984

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Removing paint and mortor is not as simple as it appears. In addition to the concerns for removing paint from windows and mortor from brick, the business persons must consider what damage chemicals will have upon the paint around windows and discoloration to the mortor left to hold the bricks. Damage of the later nature can be very costly to the sub-contractor.

Therefore since the evaluators can not clearly understand what is being proposed, TUCC can not evaluate the soundness nor the commercial potential of your concept.

June 1984 Attachment M

A Parts List for Component to Build the Portable Cable Tester Prototype for Consolidated Industries Georgia Institute of Technology ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Atlanta, Georgia 30332

March 21, 1984

Mr. Columbus Sanders Consolidated Industries, Inc. 4410-C Evangel Circle, N.W. P.O. Box 5168 Huntsville, AL 35805

Dear Mr. Sanders:

Enclosed are the parts lists as they stand at this time. These are not complete parts lists but represent our current best estimates of what will be required. Certain circuits are not yet completed and parts lists for these circuits are not included. When these circuit designs are completed, parts lists will be forwarded. The parts lists are organized into three groups; (1) parts required by us to perform debug work, (2) parts we are 100% sure will be required and are long term lead items, (3) short lead time items and not 100% sure on circuit designs. We recommend that parts in group (2) be ordered in sufficient quantity to satisfy your initial production demands. We request that parts in groups (1) and (3) be ordered in quantities only sufficient to build a single unit, and that you forward them to us so that we may test prototype design ideas.

GROUP 1 PARTS (ITEMS USED ONLY FOR DEBUG) ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PRICE

1 LED's - Breadboard 500 2 1K ohm 1/4W Resistors 500 3 Transwave K-9001/4-C 1 $359.00 4 Transwave M-9048 1 $268.00 5 Jameco KB011-ASCII Keyboard 1 $ 24.95 or if not available KB69SD5-26 $ 9.95 6 AND Model AND021 1 80 character display 770 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, CA 94010 (415-347-9916) 7 TELPAR, Inc. PL2OEX 1 Printer 4132 Billy Mitchell Road, Box 796, Addison, Texas 75001 (214-233-6631) 8 Datel Intersil DM4200 1 Digital Panel Meter 11 Cabot Boulevard, Mansfield, MA 02048 (617-339-9341)

GEORGIA TECH IS A UNIT OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA AND AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION

GROUP 1 PARTS (ITEMS USED ONLY FOR DEBUG)

(Continued) ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PRICE 9 16 Pin Wirewrap Sockets 38 10 14 Pin Wirewrap Sockets 13 11 20 Pin Wirewrap Sockets 7

GROUP 2 PARTS (LONG LEAD TIME ITEMS TO BE USED IN PRODUCTION)

ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PRICE 1 Tech Laboratories, Inc. See Attached Type E900-IN 24-1 quote 110-84

2 Tech Laboratories, Inc. See Attached Special 400 Position quote 110-84 Switch per Quotation No. 110-84, Supplement #1, 02/29/84 3 Special Multiple Tapped Transformer See Attached Microtron, or TRW, or Technitrol quotes 4 Transwave K-9001 Tiny Basic Computer $199.00 (See Attached Price Transwave Corp. Cedar Valley, Box 489 listing for quantity Vanderbilt, PA 15486 (412-628-6370) Discounts) 5 AND Model AND021 80 Character Display 6 Telpar, Inc. PL20EX Printer 7 Sola 83-48-230-2 Power Supply 1717 Busse Rd., Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007 (312-439-2800) 8 Datel Intersil DM4200 Digital Panel Meter

9 Sola 83-12-3218 +12, +5 Power Supply

GROUP 3 (SHORT LEAD TIME ITEMS)

ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PRICE

1 74LS00 Nand Gates 2 2 74LSO4 Inverters 2 3 74LS32 Or Gates 1 4 SN7406 Open Collector Drivers 8 5 74LS279 S R Latches 1 6 74LS363 D Transparent Latches 1 7 74LS374 D Tri State Flip Flop 2 8 74LS377 D Flip Flops 4 9 LM2901 Comparitor (TI) 2 10 H.V. Rectifier 3N251 or 2 MDA108A (Motorola) 11 555 Timer Chip 1 12 2N5452 FET or 5453 or 1 5454 (Siliconix) 13 Mercury Wetted Reed Relay 32 (DL1C12DM-Electronic Instrument and Specialty Corp. 42 Pleasant St., Stoneham, MA 02180 14 General Purpose Relays SPDT 11 4.66/ea. (FRL263D012/01CK-Fujitsu America Inc./Component Div. 918 Sherwood Drive Lake Bluff, IL 60044 (312/295-2610) 15 Hook up Wire MIL-W-16878 100 ft. Teflon (Belden 83028, Type EE, 1000V, 200 0C) 16 Buss AGX 0.5 Amp Fast Blow Fuse 1 17 Fuse Holder HJM - Buss 1 18 AC Line Cord and Plug - 3 prong 1 19 4.7V Zener Diode IN5230 or IN5992 1 20 10uF 600 Volt Electrolytic 1 Capacitior Sprague TVA 1963 21 0.1uF Ceramic Capacitors Sprague 2 TG-P10 22 10uF 35 Volt Electrolytic 1 Capacitor Sprague 5010106F035LL 23 1K ohm 1/4 Watt Resistor 10% 3 24 1K ohm 3 Watt Resistor 1% 2 (DALE Type RS-2B) 25 1K ohm 1/4 Watt Resistor 1% 7 (DALE CMF-60D) 26 1.2K ohm 1/4 Watt Resistor 10% 1 27 1.5K ohm 1/2 Watt Resistor 10% 2 28 5.1K ohm 1/4 Watt Resistor 10% 1 29 10K ohm 1/4 Watt Resistor 1% 1 (DALE CMF-60D) 30 10K ohm 1/2 Watt Resistor 1% 1 (DALE CMF-65D) 31 420K ohm 1/2 Watt Resistor 10% 2

GROUP 3 (SHORT LEAD TIME ITEMS) (CONTINUED) ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PRICE 32 1M ohm 1/4 Watt Resistor 10% 2 (DALE CMF-60D) 33 1M ohm 1/2 Watt Resistor 1% 2 (DALE CMF-65D) 34 500 ohm 5 Watt Resistor 1% 2 (DAKE Type RS-5) 35 93 ohm 25 Watt Resistor 1% 6 (DALE Type RH-25) 36 15 ohm 25 Watt Resistor 1% 2 (DALE Type RH-25) 37 50 ohm 1/4 Watt Resistor 1% 2 (DALE CMF-60D) 38 50 ohm 25 Watt Resistor 1% 3 (DALE Type RH-25) 39 1 ohm 5 Watt Resistor 1% 2 (DALE TYPE RS-5) 40 0-1 K ohm 5 Watt Pott 1 (OHMITE E-0119) 41 0-100 K ohm 1/2 Watt Pott 1 (CLAROSTAT 388N) If you have any questions please contact me, and my apologies for the delay in sending you this list. Sincerely,

John Rohrbaugh

JR/dm Cais Georgia Institute of Technology ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Atlanta, Georgia 30332 1 February 1984

Richard Chaver Microtran 145 E. Mineola Ave. Valley Stream, NY 11582

Dear Mr. Chaver:

I am requesting a quote for the construction of an estimated 10 to 25 transformers having the following requirements:

Primary - 120 VAC, 50/60 Hz Turns Ratio - 1:5 (120 VAC:600 VAC) Secondary - 25 taps (plus ground lead or 26 wires out of secondary), evenly spaced in voltage, i.e. 24, 48, 72, ... 600 VAC. Current - 100 mA out of any tap, no more than one tap used at a time. Regulation On Primary - None. Weight - Approximately two pounds maximum. Physical Construction- most economical, bracket mount, size not critical.

Please indicate lead time required.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should you require further information please feel free to call me at (404) 894-3522.

Sincerely,

4■,52.0 John P. Rohrbaugh Research Engineer

GEORGIA TEC/4 IS A UNIT OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA AND AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY INSTITUTION

elitOIT101407.,O V. MR iT

Woe*. lanfilncte„. j*, ta soseno0 an* nortesilorlii..A 54Faix .10WSree3 (33rAre 11- 0 ZA 7q30X3 TN3M33143,411.1 saur • • LIOL Iit1 , 19,11r1031111094111919 a. Leniona* (7.0r4b s 311T T16/1143 1 .,401. 3A1 7 : - 3 /13M . 1113 ,1' 1.1/ 11.1 1 1•11f V y• 150 Varick Street ' ,e . ".-•• •••• -;Z t. • - 9/1111.r (Sr 'Oa • )11 L7,1,„ ;non. New York,NY 10013'' • ./5. :let J.tt /Int ne V.a231441X3 v1139.ir4 : re.xl/a, selise gebtberbn: • T.61323F1 ,13./4 211/13M.ir,Rt> 4 AD-0 as? Phone: (212) 2554500 :ote3tIrlinti litrINCI:4712 c ^ Trt•-14- a Rb viv-rtaw • O3jQM l -J3C,.,:•^ -2 z 3 • 9: 9 tic.: •••(+7 t- 1,17 : ■•• •1 2t. 9.` - _u „ tr. E ..,,;! cl ■ y 191/2I 5.1,, I .P1.*/ .1' 1 s• A !", A)LI ,1".< ,110144 < 11 ,a111:1.11 , 10%...• CIUO I 01■ , r stfivst] •br.„.< • V` JG es Oi v-1.661.08,141:1voi,le bits tiea-3 • ,-d;c1 fl 4134.. _ 9.11 na t-‘ern-eir•ent V•t• awc sQsrr.st cla oaez ant. e!qcw 1,.,,,QUOTATION NO. .-35612 19.1, 60 • • :ti•71••••• • * E 1,7 Cr".% .7 91.1 7,1 ,1LJ -.r - !It*

• ;• , 0 :ruox,F ,` ■ • •••••="S' • 91311.<11 9 , ;,,r- - DATE,„ 2/7/84 - • . .E •-b1E ••, Pr , - •1. ■•. 7 1.,4•11, l• • • -,-yotjR iNQUIRY -- • Tech.""- rnone C. OUR REPRESENTATIVE IN YOUR AREA IS. • T . Electronic Research%Bldg •-■ J

- ' - THANK YOU FOR YOUR INQUIRY. OUR QUOTATION IS AS FOLLOWS:

TRW PART NO. DESCRIPTION (CUSTOMER DRAVVING NO QUANTITY PRICE EACH

't • • '1, , CI

11' 1),Z !e•

• .•••,•-•-. 9•TO Special Transformer ,. - 10/24 $172.75 Input 110V 60HZ , 25/49 112.75 • Output 550V, @ 100MA -... tapped in 25 steps equally, One tap used at a time Size approx. 4 x 31/2 x311

• • 91.•

-• • .. _ , - • , • - : ' t r: I.' C3 !",..v - 1 • 1, ,< 9.1 1 t"-74 11.0 •mltrTe• rtt '• • •••••- 1 , - • •• .

F _

Please Refer To Above Quotation No. In Subsequent Correspondence

DELIVERY:

Appendix "A" — Special Testing and Software Inclusions and Exclusions — forms part of this proposal. METHOD OF SHIPMENT WILL BE AT OUR DISCRETION UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED Subject to Credit Dept. Approval, Our Terms are 1% 10 Net 30 Days — Subject to Terms & Conditions on Reverse Side. F.O.B. PLANT OF MANUFACTURE PRICES SHOWN WILL BE EFFECTIVE FOR THIRTY DAYS FROM DATE OF THIS QU TATION. ORDER WILL BE SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE AT TRW AT TIME OF PLACEMENT.

BY: sin A

145 E. Mineola Ave., P.O. Box 236, Valley Stream, N.Y. 11582

MICROTRAN (516) 561 -6050 • TWX: 510-225-8412 001111)611Y ,

,c1slon transtomers and electronic products

QUOTATION QUOTATION NO: a 1 9 5 Georgia Institute of Technology Engineering Experiment Station DATE: February 13, 1984 TO: Atlanta, GA 30332

TERMS: Net 30. Minimum Billing 530.00 LATT: John P. Rohrbaugh, Research Ena.j F.O.B.: Valley Stream N.Y. Destination ❑ INQUIRY: Letter of February 1, 1984 SOURCE INSPECTION: ❑ Gorr. ❑ cusr. are pleased to quote you as follows: IA1

DELIVERY 1 f MICROTRAN UNIT

DESCRIPTION QTY. f PART NO. PRICE TO START MIN. RATE WKS.A.R.O. PER MO.

Power transformer per letter 10 71.59 10-12 Lot specifications 25 , 49.18 ti It Weight: 3 lbs approximate

. _ ❑ CONFIRMATION

MARKS:

for your interest, cm Over - Norcross COMPANY,. Walter Benscher Sim Deportment All quotations subject to conditions on reverse side of sheet.

POPRI F 1q P11.111

20T-044.2221 Twx 510.230.0760

QUOTATION TECH LABORATORIES, INC. QUOTATION NO. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS AND MANUFACTURERS PRZCISION ELACTRONIC INSTIMIZNTIO. ATTENUATOR111. POTENTI 014111111C1 , •VitTCHES 110-94 Georgia Tech BERGEN & EDSALL BOULEVARDS Supplement #1 PAUSADES PARK. N. J. 02/29/84 Rearch Blvd. 07650 Date. Atlanta, GA 30332 Your Reference: ATTN: John Rohrbaugh Terms: net 30 F.O.B. Pairsades Park, N. J. 404-894-3533 Subject to Credit Approval In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to quote as follows: This quotation is made subject to the conditions of quotation and sale on the reverse side and is valid for 3 9_ days. Minimum billing per order X5 0.00

Item Unit Delivery A No. DwglPart No. TECH LAB. PT. NO.. DESCRIPTION Qty. Price Rec. of Or

1 Stepping Switch Type E900 (1 Lk) Having 1 pole per deck non shortie , : 24 position 1 deck Enercon (drive) operate from 115Vac source 6-8 Pin E900-1N24-1 1-4 257.65 weeks 5-9 237.25 10-24 226.90 25-49 216.60 2 Special type Stepping Switch having, 4 decks, 100 positions per deck, 2 poles per deck (All shorted but one, single contact brought out to second pole) Enercon (drive) operated from 115 Vac Source with 0.1 sec. - min. starting pulse pin E908-2C100 4 Max size 8 x 8 x 12 max 6-8 14 1-4 1415.00 Ref only Dwg. D-7227 5-9 1302.00 10-24 1245.00 Confirming 25-49 119C.OG per telecon 2-29

TECH LkBORATORIIES, J INC.

Representative- BY Al Konrad, president Attachment N

Status Report of the Progress of the Testing Program for the Shower Bath Economizer NEWMAN, DAVLS & NAGEL Technical b Management Consultants 73/ ler4- 1115 I. NOKOMIS CIR. • KNOXVILLE.. TN 37919 1116-522.10111

PRINCIPALS ERVIN P. NEWMAN. P•a.. PRESIDENT DENT C. DAVIS. JR.. VICE PRESIDENT ROSEN? M. MAISEL. P.R.. TREASURER

MEMORANDUM

To: Those Shown Below From: Ery Newman, TVA Consultant Subject: Status of Testing Program-Shower Bath Economizer Project (SBE) Date: May 25, 1984

1. Edwin A. Bethea, TUCC Director, Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332

2. Edward H. Hardison, Georgia Tech Engineering Experiment Station, 2402 Dawson Road, Albany, GA 31707

3. James A. Hall, Project Engineer, Electrical Utilization Group, 1850 CUBB-C, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

4. Raymond Hunter, 2112 Ivy St., Chattanooga, TN 37404

5. Nan Scott, TVA, 1834 Old City Hall Building, Knoxville, TN 37902

6. Edwin Casey, 105 Parkwood Circle, Greeneville, TN 37743

7. Ron D. Wilson, Mechanical Engineer, 1850 CUBB-C, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

8. B. C. McCall, Investment Councilor, 625 Hulsey St., Chattanooga, TN 37405

9. Amin M. Kamal, Projects Manager, Electrical Utilization Group, 1850 CUBank, TVA, Chattanooga, TN 37401

Basec' on telephone discussions with James Hall, Project Manager and others in mid Nay, 1984, the current status of the SBE Testing Program is summarized as follows:

1. Number of Field Installations.

Thirty-two (32) SBE units distributed by category and location as indicated below have been installed. Agreements with the respective owners or occupants have been signed.

Memorandum Page 2

No. of No. of Category Locations SBE Units

Residential 26 26 Fire Halls 2 2 Motels 2 4 30 32

2. Area Distribution of Field Installations.

Number of SBE Units

Area Residential Fire Halls Motels Total

Chattanooga, TN 16 2 4 22 Cleveland, TN 6 0 0 6 N. Georgia 4 0 0 4 Total 26 2 4 32

3. Special Instrumentation.

Special instrumentation including data loggers and recorders to track performance have been installed at 5 SBE locations (2 in Chattanooga, 2 in Cleveland and 1 in N. Georgia). BTU meters which were to have been installed were found faulty and have been eliminated from special instrumentation. All of this work is completed.

4. Plumbing Contractors.

R. B. Poole, Chattanooga, 22 SBE's at Chattanooga at $261/unit and 6 SBE's at Cleveland at $287/unit plus all 5 instrumented sites at $331/unit.

Jerry Chambers, Ft. Ogelthorpe, GA, 4 SBE's at $300/unit.

5. Completion Dates.

All installations have been completed and work accepted.

6. SBE Testing Procedure.

The Testing Procedure has been approved.

7. Performance of SBE's as Reported by Residents.

TVA will not be able to gather residential experience via questionnaires but will receive comments from them during periodic visits.

8. Testing in EUTF at Chickamauga Dam.

Testing procedure has been approved and testing will proceed pending installation of one flow meter. Memorandum Page 3

9. Project Management Team.

No change.

10. Current Appraisal of Results.

The few comments from residents received to date are not unexpected. They are mostly favorable with typical remarks such as "Barely have to turn the hot water on" and "Had to turn the hot water faucet off." One resident at an instrumented site prompted a remark about shower flow not being what they were used to. It will be several months before more definitive reactions are available as well as analysis of operating economies.

Another review of status of this project will be made in September.

CC: Dr. Graham Siegel, Program Manager, Electrical Utilization Group 1850 CUBB, TVA Chattanooga, TN 37401

Dr. David Patterson Program Manager, Office of Natural Resources & Economic Development, TVA 1D57 Old City Hall Building Knoxville TN 37902

Mr. Alan Meier Lawrence Berkeley Lab Building 90H Berkeley CA 94720 Attachment 0

Cover Letter, Statement of Work, and a Sample Copy of TUCC's Participating Agreement Submitted to Rolling Fleet Services THE TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION Georgia institute of Technology A Unit of the University System of Georgia Atlanta. Georgia 30332

June 26, 1984

Mr. Fred Davis P.O. Box 31296 Jackson, Mississippi 39206-1296

Dear Mr. Davis:

As a follow-up to our visit with you on May 24, 1984, I have enclosed the following:

o A Participating Agreement (sample copy)

o A scope of work

The Participating Agreement is a policy statement that describes the circumstances under which TUCC will work and explains the rationale for this procedure.

The scope of work is an outline of the work TUCC proposes to undertake to determine the feasibility of your product/venture idea and other task involved such as designing the type of equipment you have in mind, getting it developed and commercialized.

Both of the enclosures are samples, however changes can be made in the scope of work, the Participating Agreement is standard TUCC procedure.

The final copy of the Participating Agreement will be one document with the scope of work attached as exhibit A. Two copies will be sent to you, one signed copy should be returned, upon its receipt, TUCC will begin to implement the agreed upon scope of work.

Should you have any questions about the enclosed material please call. I can be reached weekdays between 8:30a.m. and 4:30p.m. at (404) 894-3833.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

itAv=- Ct Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research Associate & TUCC Director

cc: David Poss

Enclosures

EAB/dk

A Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency Exhibit A

STATEMENT OF WORK

The work to be done under this agreement is to determine the feasability of automating Rolling Fleet Services truck washing operations. If automation seems feasible, work will be done to assist in design of equipment for Rolling Fleet Services.

The most effective use of technical and financial resources is expected to be achieved through Gerogia Tech EES engineers addressing feasibility and design concepts of the automation equipment. Rolling Fleet Services must plan to finance prototype construction and conduct tests of the equipment. The particular activities during each of these phases are as follows: I. Feasibility of Automation Determine from review of records time and costs of present methods.

Conceptualize automated equipment.

Estimate cost of this equipment.

Estimate operating costs and determine feasibility and project status.

Review Rolling Fleet Services ability to continue the project.

II. Equipment Desian Select/design major hardware.

Prepare guidelines for design of selected special equipment.

Obtain firm prices and determine project status. III. Prototype Construction Assist Rolling Fleet Services order hardware.

Coordinate with suppliers concerning requirements, specifications and assist in design as required.

IV. Prototype Evaluation , Work with Rolling Fleet Services to evaluate operation of the prototype.

Recommend changes in the unit.

Determine final project feasibility and assist Rolling Fleet Services project costs for a future expanded automation program.

Table 1 presents the proposed time schedule to accomplish this work.

Phase I consists of Georgia Tech personnel reviewing Rolling Fleet Services present operations by review of records and on site visits. Recommendations to improve present will be made if appropriate. A concept of the automation method will be made and reviewed with Rolling Fleet Services help. An estimate of equipment cost will be made and a business plan will be formulated based on use of this equipment. A final aspect of Phase I will be a determination of Rolling Fleet Services interested and ability to enter Phase II and III of the project. Phase II will involve Georgia Tech engineers selecting major hardware for the prototype unit and preparing specifications for the purchase of this equipment. Design of specific equipment will be performed and drawings and specifications to have this equipment fabricated will be prepared. Final prices of hardware and fabrication services will be determined.

Prototype Construction, Phase III, will be Rolling Fleet Services responsibility, however, Georgia Tech engineers will assist concerning equipment specifications, design changes and other technical aspects concerning the purchase of the equipment.

Phase IV will consist of Rolling Fleet Services placing the equipment in operation. Georgia Tech engineers will assist if technical problems develop in the equipment by evaluation and recommending corrective action. An evaluation of effect- ivness of the equipment will be made and new data will be used to update the business plan prepared in Phase I will be updated based on actual costs and performance data. TABLE 1 PROPOSED PROJECT TIME SCHEDULE MONTH 1 2 • 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CONTRACT ACTIVITIES PHASE I: FEASIBILITY XXXXXX PHASE II: EQUIPMENT DESIGN XXXXXXXXX PHASE III:PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTION XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX PHASE IV: PROTOTYPE EVALUATION XXXXXX • .7 Georgia Institute of Technology ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332

OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Telex: 542507 GTRIOCAATL Fax. (404) 894-3120 Phone: (404) 894— October 10, 1983

Subject: Participating Agreement for Minority-owned Firms Dear This letter will serve as the Participating Agreement between Georgia Institute of Technology, Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) and Consolidated Industries, Inc., in order to set forth our mutual understanding of each party's goals, commitments and responsibilities. TUCC is a part of the National Technology Commercialization Program, dedicated to the process of bringing technology-based products and services into the marketplace. The program is partially sponsored by the U. S. Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency. Each center operates in a private sector mode, but public funds are utilized. Competent and competitive minority-owned enterprises will be involved in the process of commercializing new technologies. The objective of the Technology Commercialization Program is four-fold: (1) the delivery of more technology into the nations's economic development stream; (2) the improvement of minority owned firms' productivity and expansion through new technology; (3) the identification and assessment of technologies that will enable minorities to participate in technology-based industries; and (4) the offering of assistance to companies that will develop new technology such that these companies will be better able to accept, develop and exploit new technology assessed and designated by TUCC. TUCC hopes to accomplish this objective by entering into this participation agreement with your firm.

"An Equal Educational & Institution" The development plan, which has been formulated in conjunction with your firm's management, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is hereby incorporated by reference into this agreement as TUCC's statement of work. Your firm's management staff and TUCC's supportive staff shall work together throughout this relationship in order to successfully implement the development plan. It is understood that the formulated plan may require changes due to circumstances related to product modification, the product market, or TUCC's operation. Your firm will be consulted on all such changes and informed prior to their occurrence. Additionally, your firm will receive monthly activity reports and a final report upon completion of the development activities. TUCC's obligation is limited to using its best efforts to perform the statement of work, consistent with resources and personnel available to TUCC. TUCC reserves the right to terminate this agreement without liability, if the Government terminates its funding to TUCC or if TUCC undergoes programmatic changes that prohibit it from performing its duties under this Agreement. By your acknowledgement below you agree that all writings produced by TUCC under this agreement shall be the sole property of the Georgia Institute of Technology and the same shall have the exclusive rights to copyright such writings. However, best efforts will be made to grant a non-exclusive right to your firm to publish such writings when circumstances will permit. Upon the completion of the work set out in this agreement, project personnel from and Georgia Tech shall mutually agree upon the inventorship rights for any inventions which have resulted from the project. Said inventorship agreement shall be set forth in writing and signed by the appropriate personnel. The goals of TUCC and your firm can be accomplished through our cooperative efforts. It is understood that if at any time, in the judgment of TUCC, the necessary cooperation from your firm in carrying out any of TUCC's policies and goals is not forthcoming, this agreement may be terminated upon reasonable notice. TUCC, therefore requests that management pledges to inform TUCC of any activity that would alter the formulated plans, or conditions which would impact negatively on implementing our goals for your firm (commercializing technology). If the firm is not satisfied with the efforts of TUCC at any time, it has the option of seeking a resolution of the matter by bringing its grievance before the Atlanta Regional office of the Minority Business Development Agency or the National Technology Commercialization Office in Washington, D. C. Either your firm or TUCC can terminate this agreement for cause, upon reasonable notice.

If the provisions of this Participating Agreement are acceptable, please so indicate as noted below and return one copy of this Agreement to the undersigned.

Sincerely,

Richard P. Dobb OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

/sga Receipt Acknowledged and Accepted

By Title

Date Attachment P

Program Agenda for the Meeting and Presentation for the Deputy MBDA Director and the Atlanta Regional Director Program Agenda

April 17, 1984

MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MEETING - HINMAN BUILDING GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH INSTITUTE (GTRI): APRIL 17, 1984

10:00 A.M. Arrival - Visit of TUCC/RAP Office Location Frank Brown - Art Brown - Edwin A. Bethea

10:15 A.M. Greeting ac Introductions Rudy Yobs, Associate Director, GTRI

Overview of Georgia Tech Resources Ray Moore: Director Research Communications Office

Economic Development Laboratory Resources for Minority Business Dr. David Clifton Jr.: Director, EDL

10:50A.M. Activities and Accomplishments of the Georgia Tech Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center (TUCC) Edmund A. Bethea, Director

New Inventions/Innovations Kibbie Kapsule - Edwin Bethea/Jim Muller Colostomy Kit - Dr. Wallace Shakum/Edwin Bethea

Technology Utilization Southeastern Machine Co.-Cantu Industries - Edwin A. Bethea Consolidated Industries - Edwin A. Bethea/Harris Johnson

11:05 A.M. Technology Utilization Southeastern Machine Co.- Cantu Industries - Edwin A. Bethea Consolidated Industries - Edwin A. Bethea/Harris Johnson

11:15 A.M. Georgia Tech's Non-Urban Minority Business Program Frank Brown: Director Rural Assistance Program

11:40 A.M. Informal Discussion with Administrative Staff of The Economic Development Laboratory and Business Development Division. Dr. David S. Clifton Hardy S. Taylor

11:55 A.M. Lunch: Radisson Dunfey Atlanta Hotel Poppies Restaurant

Thomas E. Stetson: Vice President Research Georgia Institute of Technology 1:45 P.M. Mini Tour - Georgia Tech Facilities Supporting Minority Business Electronic Laboratories James Toler, Principal Research Engineer Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC) Industrial Extension Division Slide Presentation Richard Combes, Chief

2:30 P.M. Wrap-up Session A proposed role for TUCC and RAPP in the Georgia Tech MBDA service system

List of Participants

Minority Business Development Agency Theron Bell: Deputy Director, MBDA National Office Paul Jones : Regional Director

Georgia Tech Dr. Thomas Stelson: Vice-President, Research Georgia Institute of Technology Ray Moore Director Research Communications Office Rudy Yobbs Associate Director/EES Dr. David Clifton Director, EDL Hardy Taylor Chief, Business Development Division Richard Combes Chief, Industrial Extension Division Edwin Bethea Research Associate and TUCC Director Frank Brown Director Rural Assistance Program Arthur Brown Manager Rural Assistance Program Dr. Wallace Shakum Senior Research Engineer James Muller Senior Research Engineer Harris Johnson,III Research Technologist West Ga. Area Office-Industrial Extension Division Economic Development Laboratory Attachment C,

Purpose and Agenda of the Meeting of the State of Georgia Representatives of Public and Private Management Assistance Organizations for Small Businesses Meeting of State of Georgia Representatives of Public and Private Management Assistance Organizations for Small Businesses

' Sponsors: Small Business Administration and Georgia Business Council Date: May 21, 1984 Place: Radisson Ounfey Hotel, Atlanta, Georgia Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Purpose: To bring together public and private management assistance organizations that provide services to small businesses to discuss effective operational methods to maximize the delivery system to the small business community.

Objective: To communicate what deliverable systems are presently being provided by public and private management assistance organizations to the small business community in the state of Georgia.

To discuss the feasibility of an external communication system that will inform clients of what assistance is available and through what source.

To discuss how to improve the quality of management assistance.

To discuss the establishment of a network to coordinate management assistance services to provide referrals and to the extent possible avoid duplication.

Goals: To improve the effectiveness of management assistance programs by uniting representatives in the state that are directly or indirectly involved.

To contribute to the improvement of training and educational programs.

To promote and enhance the professionalism of manaaement assistance programs, manaaers, and directors.

To conduct and sponsor surveys and research relating to the needs of the small business community.

To encourage and foster the free exchange of ideas among public and private management assistance organizations. Meeting of State of Georgia Representatives of Public and Private Management Assistance Organizations for Small Businesses

Sponsor: Small Business Administration and Georgia Business Council

Date: May 21, 1984

Place: Radisson Dunfey Hotel - Atlanta

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

9:00 a.m. Introduction by Mr. Miller Widemire, SBA and Dr. W. C. Flewellen, SBDC

9:15 a.m. Keynote Speaker - Mr. Gene Dyson, Georgia Business Council

10:00 a.m. Break

10:15 a.m. Management Assistance Organizations Discussions on Their Activities - Small Business Administration - Clarence Barnes - Department of Community Affairs - Alton Moultrie - SCORE - Gabriel Villarubia - Georgia Tech - Service Program - Edwin Bethea - Atlanta University - Economic Development - Thurmond Williams - Control Data Corporation - Bing Michael - Department of Community Education/JTPA - Paul Radford - Price Waterhouse - Pete Graybill - Minority Business Development Agency - Carlton Eccles - National Federation of Independent Business - Bert Fridlin - Department of Administrative Services - Larry Clark - Small Business Development Center - Frank Hoy

12:15 p.m. Lunch Speaker - Mr. Jack Talley, Vice President of Economic Development, Georgia Power Company

1:30 p.m. Workshops

4:00 p.m. Workshop Presentations

4:45 p.m. Conclusion

5:00 p.m. Adjourn Attachment R

Letter from Honeywell Regarding TUCC's Involvement of its Resource/Advisory Council Members to Assist its Participating Firms Honeywell

HARRY J. TYRPA May 23, 1984 Di rector Corporate Materiel Services

Mr. Columbus Sanders President Consolidated Industries, Inc. 4410-C Evangel Circle, N.W. Huntsville, Alabama 35805 Dear Mr. Sanders: We appreciate your letter describing the products that are designed and manufactured in your Huntsville facility. Honeywell is a diversified company with autonomous locations responsible for making their own business decisions that are best suited for their market sector. Your marketing thrust ought to be focused at each of the manufacturing locations to determine if they have a need for your products and services. In order to assist you in this endeavor, I have enclosed a listing of all of our North American locations, as well as the name, telephone number and address of our Minority Vendor Repre- sentative at each of the facilities. We trust that the above will be helpful to you. Very truly yours,

Tiyrgiva HJT:mj Enc. cc: Edwin A. Bethea Senior Research and TUCC Dir. Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332

HONEYWELL INC., HONEYWELL PLAZA, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408, TELEPHONE 612/870-6664 APPENDIX 1

Newspaper Article from the Atlanta Constitution April 23, 1984 regarding Mr. Theron Bell's Visit to TUCC 4.1;ilir ifournal AND CONSTITLTION HIGH TECHNOLOGY Top minority business official says black role models needed By Robert Snowdon Jones Staff Writer One reason there aren't more blacks and other minorities in high technology is a lack of role models, says Theron J. Bell, deputy director of the federal Minority Business Development Agency. "Blacks are always encouraged to be lawyers, teachers, doc- tors and other professionals," said Bell. "But there is little encour- agement for them to start their own businesses." It's a problem he said the Reagan administration is trying to do something about. The agency is gearing up its efforts to promote high-technology ventures by minorities, and Georgia Tech is playing a major role. Bell, a black entrepreneur who was appointed by Reagan in December 1981, was in Atlanta Bell last week to examine Georgia Tech's evaluation program for "technology commercialization." "I'm pleased with what I've seen today," said Bell, referring to Georgia Tech's Technology Utilization and Commercialization Center, which evaluates entrepreneurs' ideas. It is one of two such programs in the nation that are helping the federal agency evaluate ideas from minority businessmen to see if they have a chance for success. "We have contacts with every laboratory on the campus," said Edwin A. Bethea, a Tech research associate and creator and director of the school's commercialization center. "We determine who should look at the invention and coordinate the findings with the Minority Business De- velopent Agency." Bell, who also was here to swear In Paul Jones as his agency's new regional administrator, defended the president's minority business programs. "President Reagan issued the order last year for us to assist in starting up 60,000 new minority businesses in 10 years," he said. The 52-year-old native of Junction City, Kan., could easily be considered one of the role models he talks about. He has held management and executive positions at Chrysler Corp., was in federal government management for 15 years, and started several businesses — a trucking company in Anchorage, Alaska, an insurance company, a New York automobile dealership and night clubs in Cali- fornia. He met Reagan when the latter was California's governor, and worked as a special assistant in the gover- nor's administration. - Bell concedes he gets some interesting responses when people learn he is a Republican — mostly from white Republicans instead of black Democrats. How does he feel about being a member of a minority within a minority? . , ' - "We've got a two-party system in this country," he responded. "People don't realize that we need minorities in both parties."